Yeah I agree it really doesn’t seem to add up.

Of course, the real point of my post had to do with the selective use of documentary evidence. I heard on a radio show from a linguist who mentioned we don’t actually read whole texts anymore, but instead use the search function for electronic documents. I assume that didn’t happen here, but the point about not reading whole texts might be painfully true. (I think I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show last week. Need to check into that again soon.)

Elliot Pratkanis is a professor of psychology at the University of California. Elliot Aronson is professor emeritus at University of California and visiting professor at Stanford.

But having looked through the book I now can say that I was wrong – there is lots of trivial mention on the Korean war but nothing as I had stated.

My source was really

Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Robert Cialdini is professor of Pychology at Arizona State University.

“During the Korean War, many captured American soldiers found themselves in prisoner-of-war camps run by the Chinese Communists. It became clear early in the conflict that the Chinese treated captives quite differently that did their allies, the North Koreans, who favored harsh punishment to gain compliance. Specifically avoiding the appearance of brutality, the Red Chinese engaged in what they termed their “lenient policy,” which was, in reality, a concerted and sophisticated psychological assault on their captives. “ (Cialdini, 2001)

This is the start – but Cialdini continues to describe an approach that is as I first reported. The Chinese according to Cialdini strived to build connections and relationships with the prisoners – instead of humiliating or dehumanizing them as with torture.

@ Stoneman, thnx for keeping my honest.

An old but still interesting read – I am recounting from memory of reading this book that the North Korean interrogation methods were anything but harsh. The Koreans successfully converted American POWs to their point of view and several studies were done to figure out how patriotic Americans could become communist sympathizers. It is purported that the Koreans showed generosity and kindness while forcing Americans POWs to question ‘why communism was bad’ – the captors demonstrated that they were the victims with generosity..and American prisoners ideologically folded.

But I’m really asking -