How might one discover the best method of protecting people from themselves (and others) when they begin exploring cryptocurrency?
Most toxic maximalism reminds me of the Reid technique form of police interrogation in which good cop, bad cop is based:
The technique is known for creating a high pressure environment for the interviewee, followed by sympathy and offers of understanding and help, but only if a confession is forthcoming.
Its effectiveness seems somewhat up for debate in a similar way too:
Critics claim the technique too easily produces false confessions, especially with juveniles, with second-language speakers in their non-native language, and with people whose communication/language abilities are affected by mental disabilities, including reduced intellectual capacity. While this criticism acknowledges that the technique can be "effective" in producing confessions, it is not accurate at getting guilty parties to confess, instead sweeping up people pushed to their mental limits by stress. Critics also dislike how police often apply the technique on subjects of unclear guilt, when simply gathering more information in non-stressful interrogations can be more useful both for convicting guilty suspects and exonerating innocent suspects.
PEACE is another interrogation practice in common use, but in contrast to the Reid technique, it requires interrogators be highly trained:
In a study published in the British Psychological Society related to benefit fraud, 63% of (non-police) interviewers who displayed an acceptable level of competence in their interviewing ability obtained comprehensive accounts or full confessions from subjects. [...] In the same study, 92% of interviewers who did not display competence in their interviewing technique failed to obtain a comprehensive account of events or a confession from their subjects.
So maybe toxicity is the best lazy form of "protecting" people or maybe this interrogation model isn't very good at all. Toxic maximalists argue it's helpful, even necessary, for protecting people, but the evidence for that mostly amounts to some kind of axiom along the lines of it's worked so far. Perhaps we could do better at protecting people if we found a better means of interrogation, or if interrogation doesn't model the problem very well, a better example to borrow from.
Is toxic maximalism effective in your opinion? How do you evaluate its effectiveness? Can you think of a better model than interrogation?
controlprotect you!" 😬