alanturingdeservedbetter asked:
scripttorture answered:
Frequent interrogation could count as human contact but whether it’s enough depends on how frequent they are and the quality of the interactions.
Interrogations don’t have to be terrible, in fact they usually work better if they’re not.
The technical definition of solitary confinement is either less then one hour or less then two hours of human interaction daily (different organisations use different time definitions). The amount of interaction that any particular individual needs is- well highly individual. To the best of my knowledge it can’t be predicted.
But I think you can make a reasonable guess time-wise that would keep most people healthy. I think something in the region of four hours a day is a reasonable minimum. Having more interaction time should be fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with the character’s sleep cycle.
This wouldn’t have to be in one block chunk. Having multiple interviews in one hour, or half hour blocks, would work just as well as one long interview.
So far as I can tell it doesn’t really matter if the people don’t like each other or if they disagree. My impression is that it’s better if the interaction is positive but so long as it isn’t abusive it should still be enough to protect against the effects of isolation.
There isn’t any reason why you can’t make the interviews a positive interaction. Perhaps not at first, but gradually over time.
One of the things I came across a few times reading about conducting interrogations well was having the interrogator approach the situation in a way that gave an impression of neutrality.
Because yes the hostility is directed at the broad group the interrogator is part of (be it national, police, etc-) but we’re designed to connect to other people. To borrow from some of the tumblr sci fi posts that go around we pack bond. And our brains don’t really make exceptions for groups we’ve decided are bad. We see the people interacting with us and when we have no other choice for people to interact with- over time connecting to that person becomes more important.
We want to be seen, acknowledged and understood. A strategy interrogators can use quite successfully is showing that they’ve walked into the room without preconceptions about the person they’re interviewing.
In the most detailed write-up I saw the interrogator did this by showing the terrorist he was talking to an empty note book. ‘I didn’t come in here with a file. I don’t have any idea what you’ll say. Can you explain to me why you wanted to do this?’
This strategy doesn’t start out asking suspects for details. It starts by inviting them to make a sales pitch of their ideology. ‘Why do you believe this? Explain it to me.’
And this is a very good way of getting people whose politics are far away from the mainstream talking. As anyone who has met a conspiracy theorist in a supermarket can tell you (don’t ask them about MSG if you’re in a hurry).
Gleaning information this way is about building up rapport with the suspect over time, but it’s also about going over everything they say with a fine tooth comb in case they slip up.
And- a lot of people do. A lot of people would let little bits of information slip out while talking more broadly about The Cause.
One of the strategies people used to try and counter this was to sit backwards in the chair, so their back was to the interrogator and remain completely silent.
This is incredibly unnerving. It’s a visceral rejection of that natural human connection. And it can be extremely effective as a way to prevent the interrogator getting information.
But it’s also a form of self-imposed isolation. I suspect anyone kept alone in a cell who did this with every interrogator would manifest symptoms of solitary confinement.
This might put you in a different quandary.
Essentially if you’ve got regular interviews, with effective interrogators who are gradually building up rapport- the chances of the rebel leader actually giving up useful information at some point over that month is… reasonably likely.
The most effective resistance strategies against this kind of effective interrogation leave the character vulnerable to the effects of solitary confinement.
My instinct is that the best choice for what you want is to have the rebel character respond to the interrogators and treat it as if it’s a chance to persuade the interrogator round to the rebel’s side. And to give up a few pieces of information in the process.
It doesn’t have to be big things. Confirmation of someone’s allegiance. Confirmation that rebels were involved in particular incidents. Information about who within the rebel group this leader actually gets on with and agrees with, who they argue with. Any potential splinter points within the group.
Key to this is understanding that everyone wants to tell their story. Not spill their secrets exactly but- we all want understanding. We all want to see we have the agreement and support of the people around us.
Even when we recognise intellectually that those people are our enemies.
I hope that helps. :)
Thank you, this is a really interesting perspective and I’ll definitely consider it, but I was thinking more about the shitty, ineffective type of interrogation involving torture. Like, they do sometimes sit down at an interrogation table and ask questions, but this is done by pretty much the same group of people who are also torturing the guy, so I don’t think they’d know much about effective interrogation techniques (which is kind of relevant to the plot because at some point someone higher up notices that they’re not really getting any useful information). The rebel character does talk to the interrogators, but the current plan was that he’d mostly be giving them false information to waste their time.
Sorry I didn’t make this abundantly clear in the question.
Oops, my mistake.
Readers, this happens occasionally, don’t be afraid to correct me or send another question if I’ve got the wrong idea.
Unfortunately the answer to this is that I honestly don’t know. I’ve got suggestions and I’ll outline my reasoning behind them, but we are in ‘best guess’ territory here.
On the one hand, torturers and abusers definitely do not count as positive social interaction. On the other- I’m unsure if anyone has done any research on whether survivors who were in this sort of scenario are effected by isolation or not.
I can make an educated guess why:
There’s significant overlap between the symptoms of torture and the symptoms of solitary confinement. It virtually impossible to pick apart what symptom was caused by what abuse when the abuses are happening at the same time.
Social isolation is very common in survivors making solitary-like symptoms possible after they’re released anyway.
Over this kind of time period the symptoms from torture and abuse would probably be more severe then symptoms from solitary confinement. One set of symptoms might mask the other.
It’s within the realm of possibility that interaction, even with torturers or people perceived to be on their side, is enough to mitigate the symptoms of solitary confinement.
But I’m not sure if that would actually effect the outcome for the character in the end because he’d already have a lot of symptoms.
I can understand wanting to show that solitary confinement is serious. In this story I don’t think that can be done with symptoms alone.
My suggestion would be to pick symptoms as you normally would from the list of common torture symptoms. Four or five seems like a reasonable range. Use a few of the physical symptoms from the solitary confinement masterpost while the character is imprisoned. But don’t worry too much about whether the lasting psychological symptoms the character has are from torture or solitary.
If/when there’s a proper study on this, my bet would be that rather then functioning separately they feed into each other.
I think the best way for this scenario to emphasise that solitary confinement is a serious abuse would be to have the character express the effect it had on him in some way. By talking about it or by using the narrative to show it.
Following the character’s thought process while he’s confined is one way.
Another way could be trying to use little details after he’s released. Perhaps he has more nightmares about being locked in his cell alone then he does about being tortured. Perhaps he blames memory problems or difficulty interacting with people specifically on solitary (it doesn’t matter whether he’s right or not, survivors do sometimes decide that *this* symptom/behaviour was definitely due to *that*).
I don’t know whether you’re writing historical fiction or something in a modern/futuristic setting. But the symptoms of solitary confinement have been known (codified by the scientific community) longer then the symptoms of torture.
If you’re story is set any time from the 1800s to the- probably the 1960s (there’s earlier stuff but I really do think Fanon advanced the field a great deal) then the character may find more information on the lasting effects of solitary confinement then torture. And this could effect the way he interprets and approaches his symptoms.
Even today it’s easier to get straightforward information on solitary quickly. I found Shalev’s Sourcebook with a google search. I don’t think I could have found Rejali or O’Mara the same way.
There are also a fair number of autobiographies by the likes of Nelson Mandela that describe the effects of solitary confinement. Political activists seem more- ready to talk about this then experiences of torture.
Depending on your world he could see his experience of solitary reflected and affirmed by people he admires, and not have the same experience with torture. Which could in turn make him more willing/able to talk about solitary.
I’m sorry I don’t have a more definite answer, I hope this does actually answer the question though. :)
cucumber-s
