Some things a professional might do instead

Chasing down the link crazysoph gave me led to this by Terry Karney
from this thread, all of which may be of interest:

The main trick of interrogation is to get the subject talking. The prime difference between military and police interrogation is intent. The cop is asking questions to which he thinks he has the answer. He also has the club of punishment to wave at the subject.

( quite a bit from a professional )

More from Terry Karney:
( and then some more detail )

Some things a professional might do instead

Chasing down the link crazysoph gave me led to this by Terry Karney
from this thread, all of which may be of interest:

The main trick of interrogation is to get the subject talking. The prime difference between military and police interrogation is intent. The cop is asking questions to which he thinks he has the answer. He also has the club of punishment to wave at the subject.

( quite a bit from a professional )

More from Terry Karney:
( and then some more detail )

"What do you do instead?", generalized

I've been rereading Steve and Connirae Andreas' _The Heart of the Mind_ (neuro-linguistic programming applied to various common problems, some of them serious, and quite a good book), and finding out what to do instead of the behavior you're trying to get rid of is an ongoing theme. People do what they do for reasons--sometimes the reason is important to them, and they need some other way of achieving that goal. Sometimes they're doing what they do because they don't have a strategy for coming up with alternatives, and they need to add a strategy to their repetoir.

Since I know someone is going to ask, neuro-linguistic programming is a recent school of psychology based on the premise that people act in accordance with their model of reality. The best way to change behavior is to change the model.

"What do you do instead?", generalized

I've been rereading Steve and Connirae Andreas' _The Heart of the Mind_ (neuro-linguistic programming applied to various common problems, some of them serious, and quite a good book), and finding out what to do instead of the behavior you're trying to get rid of is an ongoing theme. People do what they do for reasons--sometimes the reason is important to them, and they need some other way of achieving that goal. Sometimes they're doing what they do because they don't have a strategy for coming up with alternatives, and they need to add a strategy to their repetoir.

Since I know someone is going to ask, neuro-linguistic programming is a recent school of psychology based on the premise that people act in accordance with their model of reality. The best way to change behavior is to change the model.

Temple Grandin on sensible rules

I see a lot of arguments about regulation, and most them seem to be about whether government regulation is good or bad--with some particular regulation being the stimulus for people (including me) saying the sorts of thing about regulation that they usually say.

I've seen little about what sorts of rules do or don't work, but Temple Grandin's _Animals in Translation_ (generally recommended for anyone who's interested in animals, emotions, mind-body interaction, or cool facts) has a very interesting section.

Temple Grandin is a high-functioning autistic who specializes in designing humane slaughterhouses. She invented an animal welfare audit for the U.S. Department of Agriculture based on the idea of finding a few key measurable facts which imply a lot about whether a facility is well-run. For example, if animals are limping, it might be a problem with their food, genetics, flooring, health, or treatment. If you enforce a limit on the amount of limping, then you don't have to have rules for all the factors that affect limping--you can just tell the farm owner to get the proportion of limping animals down.

She says that rules need to be few and clear enough to be comprehensible, to measure outputs (not inputs or paperwork), and to focus on big problems. The rules need ongoing enforcement, but a well-designed rule set makes enforcement relatively easy.

In her opionion, the problem is that verbally oriented people tend to make rules which are vague, unmanagably numerous, and not focused on relevent outcomes--she gives herself as an example of a visually-oriented person who's come up with an excellent rule system. I'm not sure that the real divide is verbal vs. visual. I suspect it's caring vs. not caring, though bad rules tend to make people not care.

Dog and cat breed standards might be an example of rules made by visual people which don't work out well, and which fail to be relevent to anything important.

Temple Grandin on sensible rules

I see a lot of arguments about regulation, and most them seem to be about whether government regulation is good or bad--with some particular regulation being the stimulus for people (including me) saying the sorts of thing about regulation that they usually say.

I've seen little about what sorts of rules do or don't work, but Temple Grandin's _Animals in Translation_ (generally recommended for anyone who's interested in animals, emotions, mind-body interaction, or cool facts) has a very interesting section.

Temple Grandin is a high-functioning autistic who specializes in designing humane slaughterhouses. She invented an animal welfare audit for the U.S. Department of Agriculture based on the idea of finding a few key measurable facts which imply a lot about whether a facility is well-run. For example, if animals are limping, it might be a problem with their food, genetics, flooring, health, or treatment. If you enforce a limit on the amount of limping, then you don't have to have rules for all the factors that affect limping--you can just tell the farm owner to get the proportion of limping animals down.

She says that rules need to be few and clear enough to be comprehensible, to measure outputs (not inputs or paperwork), and to focus on big problems. The rules need ongoing enforcement, but a well-designed rule set makes enforcement relatively easy.

In her opionion, the problem is that verbally oriented people tend to make rules which are vague, unmanagably numerous, and not focused on relevent outcomes--she gives herself as an example of a visually-oriented person who's come up with an excellent rule system. I'm not sure that the real divide is verbal vs. visual. I suspect it's caring vs. not caring, though bad rules tend to make people not care.

Dog and cat breed standards might be an example of rules made by visual people which don't work out well, and which fail to be relevent to anything important.