Neil Parille Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Here is an interview of James Valliant by the former Mrs. Peikoff, https://dontletitgo.com/2017/07/11/creating-christ-an-interview-with-james-valliant-tomorrow-at-3-p-m-et-12-p-m-pt/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Neil Parille said: Here is an interview of James Valliant by the former Mrs. Peikoff, https://dontletitgo.com/2017/07/11/creating-christ-an-interview-with-james-valliant-tomorrow-at-3-p-m-et-12-p-m-pt/ She is not the "former" Mrs. Peikoff. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 18, 2017 Author Share Posted November 18, 2017 10 hours ago, 9thdoctor said: Have you read the book Presuasion by "Godzilla"? Dennis, I've read Cialdini's Influence: The Science of Persuasion twice and referred back to it more times than I can count. I have Pre-Suasion, but I haven't read it yet. I probably will over the next couple of weeks. From what I understand, it's all about setting the table, or to use a term from behavioral science (like Kahneman), priming. Cialdini actually is Godzilla persuasion-wise. He's the foundation, or one of the main foundations, on which most other modern persuasion systems are built. The funny part about it is he started studying this because he's very gullible and wanted to figure out how to not get taken so much. Here's a little tidbit for you on writing persuasively if you have a call to action at the end. Make your message go through all six major categories Cialdini mentions, but they should go in a certain order. I got this from an Internet marketing dude. It works, too. (Incidentally, I don't do this stuff on OL. If I ever start, I will tell people up front what I am doing.) Here is the sequence: Authority Liking Consistency (baby-steps) Reciprocity Social proof Scarcity In my view, the important parts of this sequence are the first two and the last one. And even then, the first two can be inverted with the same effect. In other words, you start by bonding with the audience and getting their respect. In fact, I tend to prefer this inversion of Liking then Authority and the Internet marketer's starting with Authority. And at the end, when you have a call to action (which you should in normal marketing messages, or hell, in most messages where you want to convince people of something), you have to have Scarcity to create urgency (after such-and-such time this opportunity will end, there are a limited number of units available, etc.). The other three, Consistency, Reciprocity and Social Proof can be done in any order. People have to know you, like you and trust you before they will willingly do what you want them to. This little sequence is a shortcut to establishing that without any Pre-Suasion. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 18, 2017 Author Share Posted November 18, 2017 18 hours ago, Neil Parille said: For those who didn't know (I may have mentioned this before), but Jim Valliant recently came out with a book on the origins of Christianity (Creating Christ). I reviewed it and extensively posted comments on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R21N3705LBJS5C/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B01LRP3EDG Unfortunately Valliant refuses to debate me so we aren't going to relive the glory days of the PARC Wars. Neil, I skimmed parts of Valliant's book on the Amazon preview back when it came out (he set it up so there is a lot available to skim) and I've read your criticisms, which are very good. I've recently done a lot of study into religion and its impact on humanity and, frankly, I find Valliant's approach of boiling it all down into political maneuvering by those in power silly. Oddly enough, because of Steve Bannon, I started reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon but I've got a ways to go before I get to the Flavians. At least I know I will receive a far better understanding from Gibbon than I ever would from fairy tales by an ortho-Randian traipsing about as a history expert. (As an aside, I read Devil's Bargain a few weeks ago and today I finished Bannon: Always the Rebel. Bannon is a fascinating guy. He has a low opinion of Rand, but he gets her wrong. I think he gets his notion of her from orthos. In fact, if Rand's works meant what he thinks they do, I would agree with him. ) I'm kicking myself because I'm actually enjoying Decline and Fall irrespective why I started. Why didn't I ever look at this stuff before? Oh well... Anyway, I find my time doing this and cultivating my sense of wonder far better employed than rebutting and getting irritated at another boneheaded attempt by Valliant to fit reality to his Rand-inspired dogmas. He's Don Quixote slaying windmills, except he does it seriously, not as satire, and does it with all the excitement of watching a slug cross a sidewalk. The dolphin and anchor stuff was interesting up to a point, but I have a feeling he overextended his interpretation of that. As this is a thread devoted to the political impact of current sexual scandals, let me see if I can tie in something. Hmmm... I can't imagine Valliant having sex, much less being involved in a sex scandal. Maybe he can try to dig up some relevance by reminding folks that he thinks Nathaniel Branden is a rapist. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Michael, I have no problem with nutty books like Valliant's, but judging from Air Head Amy's interview with him, there are people who will get all their info on the New Testament from him. There are plenty of good books on the historical Jesus one can read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I started reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon but I've got a ways to go before I get to the Flavians. That's one of my all-time favorites. I'm a little confused though, the Flavians came before the Antonines, and Gibbon starts with the Antonines, chronologically speaking. Though I've seen Constantine's family referred to as Flavians too, sometimes, so maybe that's what you mean. Let me get this straight, Valliant's thesis is that Christianity was an invention (by the Roman state) in the era of Constantine (early to mid 300's) or the Flavians (around 70-100)? 70-100 would jibe chronologically, that was the era of the Gospels composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Cialdini actually is Godzilla persuasion-wise. He's the foundation, or one of the main foundations, on which most other modern persuasion systems are built. I'm going to give it a whirl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 18, 2017 Author Share Posted November 18, 2017 3 hours ago, 9thdoctor said: I'm a little confused though, the Flavians came before the Antonines, and Gibbon starts with the Antonines, chronologically speaking. Though I've seen Constantine's family referred to as Flavians too, sometimes, so maybe that's what you mean. Dennis, You are right. When we get to ancient Roman history, I'm more than a little confused. This is due to a glitch in my head. That's a quip, but it's based on truth. I have the hardest damn time remembering names. I'm always looking them up and re-looking them up and re-re-looking them up. Ditto for spelling. As to Decline and Fall, I'm actually getting used to Gibbon's writing style, which is definitely an acquired taste. It's kind of like a banquet of the passive voice. I guess this was the way people wrote a few centuries ago. Just delete what I said about getting to the Flavians. (I fudged using search. ) I started my Decline and Fall reading project a few days ago due to Bannon talking about it so much. Here's how I'm doing it. I put the Gutenberg version on the screen and listen to the Libravox audio files. I've only done the introductory material and Chapter 1 of Volume 1, so I'm still a babe in the woods. I'm thinking of getting the print version, though. I wish the offers weren't so expensive. As to Valliant's thesis, from what I can tell, paraphrased, it goes like this. Because of all the trouble the Roman empire had with the Jews, the Flavians (Roman elites, etc., at the time) decided to defang them by ramping up the altruism. So they invented Christianity and covertly fed it into the Jewish culture. Voilà. Ayn Rand conquers the Roman Empire. On another point, I don't think Valliant is even aware of the antisemitism of his thesis. It always boils down to those damn trouble-making Jews according to some people. I like the way Bannon talks about Gibbon's thesis and that's the reason I started reading Decline and Fall. According to the way he says it, the Romans became more and more interested in money flowing to the top (the elites). The elite ruling class gradually became worthless, lost it's Roman identity virtue-wise and became detached from the masses (who the elites constantly screwed), as they allowed waves of foreigners in for cheap labor and soldiering. Just like America is doing today. Here's a Breitbart article citing the Bannon bio I just read, Bannon: Always the Rebel. I only finished the bio yesterday (it just came out), but I started reading Decline and Fall a few days before I started the bio. Bannon has been talking about Gibbon for a long time. Steve Bannon: Same Causes of Roman Empire’s Decline Can Be Seen in America Today From the article: Quote In a new biography by Keith Koffler, Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon shares his reminiscences about Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, calling the tome one of his six most formative influences, and comparing America’s challenges to those to which our forebearers succumbed. . . . Bannon, a devotee of the work, sees striking parallels in present-day America. Key to Gibbon’s depiction are the steady corrosion of the core virtues, and, while the term was still centuries from being coined, “social capital” of the Roman Empire by mass uncontrolled immigration, decadence among the elite, and the loss of cohesion around societal institutions with the rise of what Arnold Toynbee would describe – 140 years later – as the Empire’s “internal proletariat” of early Christianity. . . . As Koffler relates of his conversation with Bannon: The Roman Senate “was bought and paid for by the elites. … The exact thing we face today!” he exclaimed. “What the Roman Empire faced is exactly what we face, that you lose the citizenship — and the power of citizenship — of the Roman Republic, you become an Empire, and that empire becomes a massive concentration of power and wealth, which is detached from the people. And then eventually, you’re having people who don’t want to serve in the legions, you have to go for foreign soldiers. Everybody is a mercenary. And therefore, no one really stood up or was prepared to die, really, in service to the country. And then what happened? Wave, after wave, after wave of migrations from the Goths, the Visigoths, the Huns. Coming into the empire and changing the culture and destroying the civic society they had in Rome. The empire could not withstand it.” Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 9th Doctor, Quote Let me get this straight, Valliant's thesis is that Christianity was an invention (by the Roman state) in the era of Constantine (early to mid 300's) or the Flavians (around 70-100)? 70-100 would jibe chronologically, that was the era of the Gospels composition. Valliant thinks that the Apostle Paul was a Roman agent. Paul was executed mid to late 60s. This would mean that the Christianity was created by the time of Paul's first letter (1 Thessalonians - c. 50), during the Julio-Claudians (which ended in AD68) . He also thinks the Gospels were written by the Flavians (68-96AD). It strikes me as odd that the Flavians would have any interest in continuing a scheme of previous emperors such as Nero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 20, 2017 Author Share Posted November 20, 2017 On 11/19/2017 at 8:34 AM, Neil Parille said: Valliant thinks that the Apostle Paul was a Roman agent. Neil, Now there's an idea for ya'. I wonder what the Romans paid the Apostle Paul with, money, sex and power? Land? Camels? What would life be without goofballs like Valliant for amusement? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) Roy Moore's accuser Leigh Corfman interviewed ... More lies from all nine of Roy Moore's accusers ... Edited November 20, 2017 by william.scherk "The new Puritanism ..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 I swear, all these tattle-tale sexual abuse scandals have me running back into the literature of Harold Robbins. I devoured that stuff in my youth (The Carpetbaggers, The Dream Merchants, The Adventurers, The Betsy, etc.). In a typical bedroom scene in one of his potboilers, a rich woman will mouth off to a dude who has clawed his way to the top from poverty through grit, nasty fights and intrigues, he will slap her around, they will land on the bed, then she will beg him to possess her while showering him with sexy kisses. Whew! Life suddenly feels normal again... btw - I sympathize with the women who are actual abuse victims. God knows I've defended my share. What's going on in the culture, though, is starting to fall in the "madness of crowds" category. For a con man, it's a good time to run a scam... At least and for the most part, it's ruling class establishment toadies who are going down... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) Category crumble, conceptual coleslaw, word wobbles. Douglas Murray adjudicates 'sexual misconduct' allegations for the ages. Mike Cernovich discusses his love of choking women and being arrested for rape. #Conyers pic.twitter.com/Sjkbz6P6Wz — Vic Berger IV (@VicBergerIV) November 21, 2017 Edited November 21, 2017 by william.scherk #Conyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Spoiler Stefan Molyneux is at bat for the actual victims, actually. No scandal coverage is complete without an entry by Pizzagate! king David Seaman: "I sympathize with the women who are actual abuse victims." Actual abuse victim goggles on sale here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 I'm still waiting for coast to coast demonstrations by feminists with pink pussy hats against all this female abuse by progressives. Where's Madonna when you need her? And Katy Perry? And on and on? I feel a craving for a celebrity-studded emotion-laden diatribe against the patriarchy... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 And another... Richard Dreyfuss is accused of exposing himself to writer Wondering if there aren't demonstrations because the feminists think they are winning right now? The narrative definitely seems to be on the offensive... I'm also reading that on some college campuses there are more initiatives to adjust the lines of what is consent and what is not consent. The accusations in the media could be used for cause to pursue adjusting the feminist's agenda to even more anti-man, anti-masculinity. In the past it's been more about women empowerment, today it's more about cultural emasculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: Wondering if there aren't demonstrations because the feminists think they are winning right now? Korben, That's not the law of the jungle. Hungry predators become more vicious to the helpless than to a prey that can fight back. When a predator smells blood and is hungry, do you think it prefers a nasty fight? Or do you think it wants an easy kill? In the jungle, it's the easy kill... As for humans, you can take humans out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of humans when they go into predator mode. (btw - That's a good reason NOT to advertise your own weakness if you are publicly poking adversaries.) Do this thought experiment. Imagine that the list of celebrities being accused of abuse of power for sex and losing their gigs are: President Trump, Vice President Pence, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell Jr., Mike Huckabee, Steve Bannon, James Wood, Jon Voight, Chuck Norris, Newt Gingrich, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and so on... How many progressive people do you imagine would be on a soapbox in outrage and making demands? They would have plenty of press and discussion panels, that's for sure. I could even see women destroying property in the molds of BLM under Obama... Viva Antifa!... Remember when it was Roger Ailes, then Bill O'Reilly? The feminist demonstrations were revving up and threatening to go into high gear. But then something happened and the Great Feminist Fizzle got underway... I wonder what it was... Michael EDIT: I will give you this. When you keep telling someone they have power, when you advocate for that power, when you celebrate that power, don't be surprised when that person wants to assume and use power. And you better not be abusing such person when that happens. That is one of the root problems for this situation with progressives. Here's another. The males among them found out that when they SAID they were for women's rights (pro-choice, equal pay, fixing words like "mankind," etc.), they got easy poontang and, at the same time, this made it hard for women to accuse them of abuse. What's not to like about that and what could possibly go wrong? They were never truly interested in women's rights. The sheer number of prominent progressives going down proves it. And another root problem. They had the example of Horndog in Chief, Bill Clinton, as role model. After all, if he got away with it, why shouldn't they? Darn, it used to be a man's world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 Here's a guy who thinks Charles Manson's ghost helped take down Charlie Rose. Charlie went up with Charlie, and Charlie went down with Charlie on the same day. (For the record, Manson died Nov. 19 and the story about Rose broke on Nov. 20, but there were already some indications on Twitter and the alt media on Nov. 19, so the attack plan was already settled and moving by then.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 And let's have a little fun... I'm not a predator, I'm a fucking gatekeeper... Hey, Johnny Cornstalk. Do you want to make it in showbusiness? Well then wear something lacey, because here comes Spacey... That's how it works... LOL... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 On 11/18/2017 at 4:30 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I've read Cialdini's Influence: The Science of Persuasion twice and referred back to it more times than I can count. I have Pre-Suasion, but I haven't read it yet. Turns out I already had it (Influence). I stopped when I got to the part about the Genovese case; it's been debunked and it gets on my nerves when people reference it, so that's probably why I dropped it. I went ahead and finished the book, and am now taking in Presuasion, which I'm finding much more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, That's not the law of the jungle. Hungry predators become more vicious to the helpless than to a prey that can fight back. When a predator smells blood and is hungry, do you think it prefers a nasty fight? Or do you think it wants an easy kill? In the jungle, it's the easy kill... As for humans, you can take humans out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of humans when they go into predator mode. (btw - That's a good reason NOT to advertise your own weakness if you are publicly poking adversaries.) Do this thought experiment. Imagine that the list of celebrities being accused of abuse of power for sex and losing their gigs are: President Trump, Vice President Pence, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell Jr., Mike Huckabee, Steve Bannon, James Wood, Jon Voight, Chuck Norris, Newt Gingrich, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and so on... How many progressive people do you imagine would be on a soapbox in outrage and making demands? They would have plenty of press and discussion panels, that's for sure. I could even see women destroying property in the molds of BLM under Obama... Viva Antifa!... Heck of a list---but Chuck Norris? NO way, he kicks too much ass. Ted Nugent, okay he was kind of annoying. Kid Rock? Expendable. 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Remember when it was Roger Ailes, then Bill O'Reilly? The feminist demonstrations were revving up and threatening to go into high gear. But then something happened and the Great Feminist Fizzle got underway... I wonder what it was... Michael EDIT: I will give you this. When you keep telling someone they have power, when you advocate for that power, when you celebrate that power, don't be surprised when that person wants to assume and use power. And you better not be abusing such person when that happens. That is one of the root problems for this situation with progressives. Here's another. The males among them found out that when they SAID they were for women's rights (pro-choice, equal pay, fixing words like "mankind," etc.), they got easy poontang and, at the same time, this made it hard for women to accuse them of abuse. What's not to like about that and what could possibly go wrong? They were never truly interested in women's rights. The sheer number of prominent progressives going down proves it. And another root problem. They had the example of Horndog in Chief, Bill Clinton, as role model. After all, if he got away with it, why shouldn't they? Darn, it used to be a man's world... Feminism is more fundamental than political affiliation. Feminists are not only progressives, but independents, conservatives, and non-political. The progressive feminists aren't saying much because they don't have to, the allegations will strengthen them in the long run. A purge, a cleanse right now. They'll end up with more Tapper-like feminists in the long run, be in a better position in both the media and entertainment for the next election cycle. Weren't there supposed to be more Trump tapes out there?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Feminists are not only progressives, but independents, conservatives, and non-political. Korben, When I say feminists in the context of media stunts like public pussy hat demonstrations, I'm mostly referring to third-wave feminists of the Marxist variety who hate men. btw - Ayn Rand once said she could never be a feminist because she was a male chauvinist. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said: I stopped when I got to the part about the Genovese case; it's been debunked and it gets on my nerves when people reference it, so that's probably why I dropped it. Dennis, I would be careful to not get caught up in a gotcha thing here. I'm not saying you are, but if you get so turned off to an entire book because of an example that was later debunked, you could fall into the error of glibness and dismiss important knowledge. For the reader, the Genovese case is when a woman was stabbed to death over and over in NYC and 38 eyewitnesses stood around and watched without doing anything. Except there were not 38 witnesses. This was an exaggeration at the time due to several factors, but since it was reported in the NYT and story was dramatic, that made it seem credible. Thus the story entered into a lot of psychological literature and was repeated often in popular culture for years. It was a great story for teaching ideas about human nature and society (both false ideas and true ones), which is probably why it survived as long as it did. The thing is the Genovese murder happened in the '60's and so did the famous NYT article. Cialdini's book, Influence, was written in 1984 and the latest revision, I believe, was 2006. The serious doubts about the story only started appearing in the mainstream in 2004 (by only one main journalist) and in 2007 it was debunked in American Psychologist (see here for some of the chronology). The year 2014 marked the 50th anniversary of the murder, so that's when the debunking started getting some traction for real in the mainstream. This was reinforced in 2016, when the attacker died. But here's the thing. The murder did happen with bystanders who did not help. So the debunking is over the number of bystanders, not the fact that the murder happened with bystanders. Also, the original NYT editor (Rosenthal) behind the reporting and slant, although he didn't write the article, leaned right, so there is probably a bit of partisan zeal in the more recent debunking attacks to show what an immoral dirty rotten scoundrel he was. What bothers me the most is the logical error. If a principle is correct (like Cialdini's social proof principle) and one illustrates it with a flawed example, that does not invalidate the principle. Yet invalidate the whole shebang is exactly the kind of conclusion and logical error that is promoted by the mainstream debunkers, at least the ones I read. In fact, this is the flaw behind the entire gotcha culture: that is, if you can debunk a detail of an account, you have invalidated the entire substance of it. I suspect this comes from an out-of-focus habit by the intelligentsia of erroneously reifying Popper's falsification theory to a metaphysical status instead of keeping it constrained to testing specific predictive propositions. Note: I'm not against correcting the record and setting urban legends right. I'm all for that. I am against using this effort to promote other errors, whether intentional or unintentional. But it can get worse. Errors of this sort can be dangerous. It's been a few years since I last read Influence, but if I remember correctly, Cialdini gave a piece of advice about what to do if you have a heart attack in a public place. Rather than rely on an appeal to the crowd by shouting, "Help!", he suggested you try to get eye contact with an individual and ask that individual for help. If that person doesn't help, find another and make eye contact. There is solid psychology behind this advice, both concerning crowds and individuals. If a reader is full of self-righteous certainty because he believes Cialdini has been debunked because one of the examples he used for illustrating a principle was, that reader might not even have noticed this advice or consider it when he most needs to. I bet future editions of Influence will run a correction on the Genovese case. You, yourself, could even write to Cialdini and suggest this. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Introducing a new product from Infowars. No, not a new soy-sourced masculinity supplement, but: Snopescheck dotcom. And for those who suspect 'sexual harassment' is simply normal Harold Robbins slapping around women who ipso facto are whores and liars ... a shocking video hot off the griddle at The War Room. Lest anyone suggest that Objectivist Living is sliding into an epistemic swamp ... facts, data, truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I would be careful to not get caught up in a gotcha thing here. I'm not saying you are, but if you get so turned off to an entire book because of an example that was later debunked, you could fall into the error of glibness and dismiss important knowledge. I agree it doesn't debunk Cialdini's message, I was just explaining why I don't seem to have finished it the first time around. This book has been recommended on this site quite a few times and I must have bought it (from Audible) some years ago after someone raved about it here. As I've said before, it's not a topic that normally turns me on. Obviously I'd completely forgotten the author's name etc. I went to buy it again, and Audible showed that it was already in my library. I started it back up and it picked up where I'd left off, in the part about the Genovese case. BTW, what's been debunked about that case is that no one called for help. There were multiple calls to the police, and they didn't respond. I'm still going through Pre-suasion now, and it's very engaging. His advice for handling a police interrogation has a nice punch-line to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now