The cynic in me sees this being a great way for an author or other writer to get ideas for a story/biography piece or ad campaign, then not pay royalties because they gave the person $1 for the story and names/details were changed in the final for sale product.
true, but you can see this in so many ways (I choose the blue pill, for once):
- It could be some introvert who's therapist told him "go out and talk to people" but he feels needs to make it up to them for that.
- He can be doing a term paper, a doctorate's or actual real-life research, and it's cheaper to do it this way (although the sample would be skewed).
- He can use that knowledge to enrich other people's lifes (imagine he's a tour guide by profession. this adds so much colour to storytelling).
- While he might not use things just as they are told, knowledge of those life stories will surely enrich his, especially if he is an artist, and he can channel that knowledge into his art.
- It could be some introvert who's therapist told him "go out and talk to people" but he feels needs to make it up to them for that.
- He can be doing a term paper, a doctorate's or actual real-life research, and it's cheaper to do it this way (although the sample would be skewed).
- He can use that knowledge to enrich other people's lifes (imagine he's a tour guide by profession. this adds so much colour to storytelling).
- While he might not use things just as they are told, knowledge of those life stories will surely enrich his, especially if he is an artist, and he can channel that knowledge into his art.