Slashdot Mirror
The Neurological Basis of Con Games
Hugh Pickens writes "If we humans have such big brains, how can we get conned? Neuroeconomist Paul J. Zak has an interesting post on Psychology Today in which he recounts how he was the victim of a classic con called 'The Pigeon Drop' when he was a teenager and explains how con men take advantage of the Human Oxytocin Mediated Attachment System, called THOMAS, a powerful brain circuit that releases the neurochemical oxytocin when we are trusted and induces a desire to reciprocate the trust we have been shown. 'The key to a con is not that you trust the con man, but that he shows he trusts you. Con men ply their trade by appearing fragile or needing help, by seeming vulnerable,' writes Zak. 'Because of THOMAS, the human brain makes us feel good when we help others — this is the basis for attachment to family and friends and cooperation with strangers.' Zak's laboratory studies have shown that two percent of the college students he tested are 'unconditional nonreciprocators' who have learned how to simulate trustworthiness and would make good con men. Watch a video of Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer running the classic pigeon drop on an unsuspecting victim and see if you wouldn't be taken in by a professional con man yourself."
If cons work by making us feel good about helping the con man, then how come so many are based on the mark trying to rip off someone? In the pigeon drop, the mark is trying to rip off the con man. In insider-knowledge scams, the mark is trying to rip off honest traders or gamblers. With "white van" scams, the mark thinks he's buying stolen goods.
Forget all the babble about neurochemicals.
Forget all that scientific evidence...what, because you say so?
If you aren't greedy, if you aren't looking to get something for nothing, it will be nearly impossible for you to be conned.
So explain how a person is greedy without using the brain as a part of that explanation.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Con men ply their trade by appearing fragile or needing help, by seeming vulnerable...
Sounds like a few women I've dated. Sometimes, love and romance is also a con game, now isn't it?
No, those are just the obvious con men. The ones 'everyone' knows about because after it's over 'everyone' goes "How stupid would you have to have been to fall for that."
Believe me, there are plenty of other people out there who are willing to con you that don't rely on your greed.
Ever been the fall guy? The one left holding the bag?
Ever get suckered into buying a lemon car from used car salemen.
Ever been suckered into being 'friend' that gets the 'ugly one' on a double date?
Ever donate to a charity because the guy on the TV asked you too and said "Your dollars can help".
Greed is a tool to catch the greedy. Compasion is the tool used to catch the compasionate. Pride is the tool used to catch the prideful (as in "You are too smart to ever fall for such an obvious con...)
There are plenty of clay feet out there to aim at, greed is just one of them.
Sounds like you have an inherent understanding of Thoreau. "If a man comes to you with the obvious intention of doing you good, run for your life."
Similar to the upcoming US election results
...it's because you're a gullible fool. When I get conned, it's because someone "took advantage of the human oxytocin-mediated attachment system". Well, who wouldn't fall for that?
I'd say that the recent con game that the bankers and ratings companies were running proves that the most successful people in business have a lot of the con man in them.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
When dealing with $3,000 a light has to go off in your head that says "there are procedures for dealing with this". Go to the police. Tell the guy you'll walk to the nearest police station with him, or that you'll call the non-emergency number with your cel phone. The police will hold the money for a statutory limit, and if nobody claims it, THEN you might get it. YMMV on the laws in your jurisdiction and how honest the cops are.
Now, if you're not a totally honest man a different light goes off in your head. That light says "How can I get this money, nevermind the victim or due process".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
There is no doubt that functional imaging such as fMRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fmri) PET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography) and MEG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography) have been a tremendous boon to the field of neuroscience. But seeing localized activity in the brain and then drawing a conclusion about the mechanisms of behavior is the wrong way to interpret the data. I hate Psychology Today for pulling this crap all the time, activity in the brain is simply data to be interpreted, not a conclusion in itself. This is like when a segment of DNA is implicated in some sort of behavior or developmental trait, and we see the headlines "X gene discovered!!!". The question is simply too complex to answer with that kind of analysis.
We cannot view the brain as a simple modular system, which merely needs a circuit diagram drawn to discover its mysteries. Functional specialization no doubt exists, but in an interconnected and complex way that resists simple explanations of "oh, this part of the brain lit up during this therefore this". Localization alone tells us little, it is only in complement with studies of neurotransmitter mechanisms, single cell recordings, computational theories, and numerous other techniques of brain exploration that any real answers are going to be found. THOMAS doesn't explain anything, its just a piece in the puzzle.
At the same time, people can be over confident and what they know can deceive them. I would bet there is a set of cons that hit smart people harder.
On that note, I have meet some very smart but very stupid people.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
With such a black and white perspective
Since GP used the word 'spectrum', your hypothesis is full of fail.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!