Hacker News Reader

Comment by JadeNB | Hacker News Reader

> I want to believe redemption is possible, especially given how eloquent he is, but his demonstration of calculation over emotion in her murder makes me strongly question his change.

I think it would be ridiculous for me to presume that I can possibly have any view into whether or not someone has sincerely changed, but why should the fact that someone was calculating once affect whether they have changed? I could see doubting the apparent demonstration of change, because they might have calculated the appropriate words to say, but I don't see any reason that a calculating person is less able sincerely to change than any other.

View on HN

I consider it a Bayesian approach to understanding potential internal drivers. Someone who is not cold and calculating likely has less capacity to completely present the appearance of redemption whereas someone who is calculating has that capacity.

So, someone who is demonstrated to be calculating has higher odds of faking a behavior if it is beneficial to them (e.g. leaving prison).

It's for him to know, but I don't think it's ridiculous for me to question.

I'm with you on that one. I read the whole thing closely and my conclusion is that some of what's there is playing to an invisible audience. And some of the rest of what's there feels like 'the real Hans' shining through because he hasn't really changed, but is actively trying to change how he is perceived. I could try to enumerate those bits but it doesn't matter all that much, it's just the feeling that I get from reading the text.

Same. Pretty much any instance where he mentions prison groups or classes, it is very specific and emphasizes strongly that they have changed him. And he knows his mail will be read by the prison staff anyhow. The only benefit of the doubt I have here is maybe the groups/classes promote discussing topics like this precisely because they know a parole board gives them consideration. In which case, he'd be an idiot to not play along if he's angling for parole. (And if that is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if the prison system is being duplicitous in telling prisoners that so they can be demoralized when denied, ie. "I followed the rules and did what you tell me, but you still won't let me go?")

> my conclusion is that some of what's there is playing to an invisible audience

My impression was that he got an assignment in class to write a letter where he reflects on bad interactions in the past, apologize, and try to put them behind him.

I also got the impression that he really wants people to write/call him and discuss computer stuff, so this might be part of the motivation for writing it.

But I don't know him, so who knows what's going on in his head?

I've not done it, so I don't know, but I suspect you can never fully get to "I completely regret what I did because it was wrong" without having somewhat of "I completely regret what I did because I got caught".

I do think we wants to discuss computer stuff; he seemed entirely unaware of SSDs and how that has (and should) change filesystems, and still thinks Slashdot is a place to post things.

> Slashdot is a place to post things

It is! But this isn't there :)

> It's for him to know, but I don't think it's ridiculous for me to question.

My reference to ridiculous was to the ridiculousness of my thinking that I have any insight into Reiser's character—a disclaimer at the beginning that I was not presuming to offer any. I was in no way meaning to call you or your statement ridiculous.

> I consider it a Bayesian approach to understanding potential internal drivers. Someone who is not cold and calculating likely has less capacity to completely present the appearance of redemption whereas someone who is calculating has that capacity.

Yes, that was exactly what I was meaning to say. Someone being known to be calculating should create a higher evidentiary bar—they need to do more to convince me that they have changed. But I don't think that it offers any evidence against their having changed. And maybe this is what you were saying:

> I want to believe redemption is possible, especially given how eloquent he is, but his demonstration of calculation over emotion in her murder makes me strongly question his change.

I read this as "the fact that he is calculating makes it less likely that he has changed." But maybe you just meant "the fact that he is calculating means that I require stronger evidence that he has changed"?

Great comment. For me that fact means that I don't just read it with 'a higher bar' but with the possibility that what I'm looking at is created with the express purpose of deceiving me so some of it reverses in meaning.

Hans is probably high on the psychopath scale, and if you do any reading about psychopaths, the main takeaway is that you can never believe what they are saying. From Google:

What is a psychopathic person?

Psychopathy is a severe personality disorder characterized by interpersonal deceptiveness and calloused, remorseless use of others, as well as behavioral recklessness, impulsivity, and overt antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression, violence). From: Encyclopedia of Mental Health (Third Edition), 2023.

A "higher bar" is basically "evidence against" because you're saying you need more evidence for.

Then again, everything I've read leads me to believe he's impulsive at times (even says so in the letter!) and the calculating part was afterwards not before or during (if it was, he was notoriously bad at it).

Thank you for the well-reasoned reply, I misunderstood the thrust of your commentary.

> I read this as "the fact that he is calculating makes it less likely that he has changed." But maybe you just meant "the fact that he is calculating means that I require stronger evidence that he has changed"?

That's a fair point. I need to reflect more on that. It is not my place to proclaim absolutely likelihood, you're correct. I think the latter statement is closer to the thrust that I'm getting at. My burden of proof for redemption is higher than a less calculating criminal/crime.

the assumption here is that your judgement of calculating is accurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com