
Why we fall for cons - hhs
http://timharford.com/2019/12/why-we-fall-for-cons/
======
interfixus
A far, far deadlier variation of the Köpenick caper: In Norway, 2011, Anders
Breivik got himself ferried to the Utøya island solely on the strength of
convincing demeanor and a homemade pastiche of a police uniform.

There was a real policeman in charge of security on the island. After the
bombing of government headquarters in Oslo an hour earlier, everything was on
top terror alert, and Utøya had beeen put in quarantine, the connecting little
ferry ordered not to sail.

Despite all this, Breivik was instantly ferried across, no questions asked,
heavily armed and politely assisted with the carrying of ammunition boxes both
onto and off the the boat.

Upon landing, he almost immediatly shot and killed the police officer, who
despite apparent doubts had not taken up any countermeasures. And then of
course killed 68 more, plus wounded about twice that number.

With a phone call and a modicum of due diligence, everyone would have been
safe.

~~~
ceejayoz
> With a phone call and a modicum of due diligence, everyone would have been
> safe.

Isn't it substantially more likely the officer would've been shot, and the
ferry driver forced to take the trip at gunpoint anyways?

~~~
interfixus
The ferry was at quai _on the island_. It was actually sent across to the
mainland on Breivik's request. Anyway, even if hijacked at gunpoint, consider
that 600 people would have had 5 to 10 minutes warning that a lone gunman was
approaching on a small vessel with only one possible point of entry.

------
loganfrederick
"It is exciting to read about a fraud — from a distance. It is not so funny to
live through one."

This is a great summary.

My estranged father is a professional con artist: He has multiple lies on his
social media about his alleged wealth and committed credit card fraud while I
was in high school resulting in my parents' formally declaring bankruptcy.

I have found it very difficult in life to convey in words what being exposed
up close and personal to con men is really like, because normal people lack
imagination to put themselves in the mind of someone who doesn't care at all
about humanity.

Author Chuck Klosterman has a chapter about con artists in his book "I Wear
the Black Hat" which covers similar ground as Harford: people enjoy these
stories and con men because of a mix of admiration (life is easier in some
ways if you literally biologically can't care about anything except base
biological needs of sex, power, and consumption) and curiosity for the
different.

Having known multiple con men in my life, including family, I can definitely
claim it's less entertaining in person than in media.

The other book I recommend on this topic is Dr. Kent Kiehl's "The Psychopath
Whisperer" for its mix of neuroscience and personal stories.

"I Wear the Black Hat - Grappling with Villains Real and Imagined":
[https://www.amazon.com/Wear-Black-Hat-Grappling-
Villains/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Wear-Black-Hat-Grappling-
Villains/dp/143918450X)

"The Psychopath Whisperer": [https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Whisperer-
Science-Without-...](https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Whisperer-Science-
Without-Conscience/dp/0770435866)

~~~
buckminster
You may well know this but John le Carre's father was a big time con man. The
somewhat autobiographical novel "A Perfect Spy" goes into his experiences and
is an excellent read.

~~~
loganfrederick
I did not and will pick it up, thank you for the recommendation!

------
learn_more
Another explanation would be "assumed due diligence".

It's the assumption that someone else has already confirmed the veracity of
the situation. Once the "officer" had the first group of dupes in tow, he
appeared legitimate to the second and third groups of people he encountered.

Using this approach, you parley the deception of each subsequent group of
people into one spectacular overall ruse.

~~~
rahidz
Yup. The amount of times I've heard "The telephone companies wouldn't let
anyone just pretend to be 911, would they?" is stunning. By the time people
are speaking to the scammer, they've already been fooled once.

------
traveler1235
I've traveled a fair amount in the third world and I think it has given me
insight into why people in places like America are more likely to fall for
cons and it's because 1st world countries are considered high trust societies
(good topic to read about if you're interested) and generally people here deal
with people who are honest on average and aren't always on guard against being
cheated. In many third world countries these places are considered low trust
societies and it's necessary to be constantly on guard. For example when
traveling in these places I have to be very careful checking change I get back
as I've been cheated a few times, things like this. This builds up a natural
distrust of others that I think may help guard against being a victim.

~~~
nikanj
Being constantly on guard can be seen as a transaction cost, and when you add
that to every single interaction in the whole society you put a real damper on
the GDP

------
klenwell
> Faced with the right con, we’re all vulnerable.

This This American Life episode (replayed this week) offers a slightly more
benign version of this truism:

[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/323/the-super/act-
two](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/323/the-super/act-two)

I'm an aficionado of the genre (read Maria Konnikova's The Confidence Game:
Why We Fall for It Every Time recently) and I think this is my favorite con
story ever.

It looks like audio isn't available at the moment but should be back online by
tomorrow. If you listen, make sure you listen through to the end.

Transcript (it's Act Two):
[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/323/transcript](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/323/transcript)

------
Discombulator
What I always find interesting is how Milgram’s experiments are put into
context (“explained away” might be more apt) by various authors. Anecdotally,
no one seems to be open to accept the conclusions of the experiments, just
like in the article. When this topic was brought up at some point in school, I
remember my teacher prefacing it with the experiments not having been
replicated elsewhere (which they actually have been).

I cannot comment on the specific point raised here, it’s been a while since I
read Milgram’s book, but I remember that many different experimental
conditions have been tested, and I don’t think that picking out a single one
of them and reinterpreting some minute aspect changes the overall
significance.

Moreover, if you’re in the sorry situation of being on the receiving end of
some punishment ordered by an authority figure, like the “learner” in the
experiment, does it really matter that whoever doles out the punishment, does
so not because of an explicit order but because he is being coaxed in various
ways to obey?

One key point of the experiments is that the overseer has no formal authority
over the teacher at all, and the fact that a lab coat and some easy
psychological conditioning steps are sufficient to make over half of the
population obey should give anyone food for thought.

Skipping a few steps of thought here, but my conclusion is that we are all
being groomed to obey authority figures – the “con” aspect is not decoupled
from that; it is one of many mechanisms that are used to exert control. What
Milgram showed is a practical consequence of that process.

------
adrianmonk
Not closely related to the article at all, but the title reminded me of
another reason we might fall for cons, which is that we haven't read this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks)

~~~
dehrmann
And the Little Black Book of Scams.

[https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-
bc.nsf/eng/0...](https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-
bc.nsf/eng/04333.html)

------
cmdshiftf4
Interesting article.

>Refusing to administer a shock of 225 volts would be an implicit admission
that they had been wrong to deliver 210.

This aligns with my suspicion around why we fall for cons, whether it's
similar to the Köpenick caper, the above experiments or even some to the
"Prince of Nigeria" type cons - it's the cost of being wrong. In the story
with Captain Voigt, the cost of being wrong started off quite high and rose
with every order acquiesced to. In the experiments, it started off low but
rose with every iteration. With a "large windfall" type con, the cost of being
wrong is, at least naively, missing out on an entirely new life.

Combine that with a figure of presumed valid authority - a scientist at a
research institute, an army Captain, or a Prince with access to means - and
it's not difficult to see how people become entrapped.

------
claudeganon
I’ve often wondered given what we now know about psychopathy (it’s heritable,
has a biological basis) if humanity, and especially it’s social order, isn’t
locked in a kind of evolutionary arms race between these two forms.

Essentially, psychopaths push for forms of social ordering that allow them the
greatest latitude, entrench hierarchical power, and normalize their antisocial
nature, while the prosocial rest of us struggle to resist them through more
communal and consensus-oriented forms.

There’s obviously a continuum between the two poles from which all conflict
and failures arise, but given how much of success in modern society seems
oriented around the antisocial pole, I’m often left wondering which side is
winning.

~~~
jariel
"psychopaths push for forms of social ordering that allow them the greatest
latitude,"

This is an interesting idea, but I fully disagree that it's reality.

We can debate about 'how much', but some aspects of social order require
hierarchy and power - it's unavoidable.

The 'psychopaths' are the one's who wield it without regard for the inherent
responsibility.

'Concentrations of power' are not inherently bad, but they provide a much more
potent opportunity for corruption.

------
ranDOMscripts
...is because humans, in general, have a natural truth bias.[0]

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-
default_theory#Truth_bia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-
default_theory#Truth_bias)

------
sansnomme
For those who are interested in countermeasures for cons and scams from a
machine learning and information security perspective, take a look at
419eater. They are a forum of volunteers who spend their time increasing the
opportunity cost for advanced fee fraud scammers.

[https://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=66](https://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=66)

They also use the infamous Lenny natural language bot among other methods of
automation.

------
dleslie
I honestly expected an article about the pitfalls of many Lisps' use of cons
chains to produce lists; versus fixed length arrays and resizeable vectors.

------
pmoriarty
There's a con game you can witness being played in San Francisco on many warm
afternoons, usually between Pier 33 and Pier 39, a location designed to catch
the tourists coming off the Alcatraz tour boats at Pier 33. It's called the
shell game.[1]

The aim of the "game" is to bet money on which shell the ball is under after
the shells are mixed up. It's played in many other parts of the world, and
though in the old days was played with walnut shells, these days they usually
use plastic bottle caps, match boxes, or metal cups. Instead of the
traditional ball, these days they usually use a piece of chewing gum or wad of
aluminum foil. Here's a video of a famous shell game hustler plying his trade:
[2], and another of the shell game being played in Stockholm: [3] Many more
here: [4]. The three card monte[5] is essentially the same scam, with three
face down cards instead of shells.

The sad thing is that many people think this is a game of skill. But it's not.
It's a con that's been refined over hundreds of years to non-violently rob you
of your money.

Something else most people don't realize is that when there's a shell game
going on, the shell game operator (the guy who mixes up the shells) is not
alone. He's almost always part of a gang of between 4 to 8 people, each
playing a specific role in the scam. Some of the most important pretend to be
players, making noise, having a great time, and apparently winning lots of
money, since the hardest thing to do in a shell game con is to get people to
stop and play, and this is the main way they do it. They also have lookouts,
who warn the gang if they spot the police, and others with various functions
like smoothing over ruffled feathers of the losers or handling trouble. In the
above videos you'll also see gang members regularly stand in front of cameras
to try to block the view.

Unless the shell game operator is incompetent or wants to give the impression
that the game is being played fairly (usually when no actual money is at
stake), the mark will never be able to guess where the ball is, as the
operator has a cheating move to make the ball disappear from under any shell
and appear anywhere else he wants.. and if the mark ever does guess correctly,
there are numerous ways the hustlers have of making sure the mark never
collects his money. One common way is for one of the gang members to yell
"police" and have everyone run away (usually with the mark's money). Another
is for one of the gang members to "accidentally" knock the table over before
the shell is lifted. If all else fails for them, they will often not be above
just simply mugging their mark a couple of blocks away from the game.

Really, the only way to "win" at this "game" is to have a bigger gang.

Unfortunately, the police don't seem to do anything about this, even though
they're usually well aware that the games are being played. I've been told by
SF police that they know the shell game is going on there, but there's nothing
they can do because as soon as they approach the hustlers run away. All they
can do is cite them for littering, because they usually knock their cardboard
table over on the sidewalk before they run away. I'm not sure why the police
haven't just dressed as tourists, though. It should be pretty easy to catch
the hustlers then.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game)

[2] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRFlJVTT8FY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRFlJVTT8FY)

[3] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AboNGr7RxKE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AboNGr7RxKE)

[4] -
[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=61150A4524304AB8](http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=61150A4524304AB8)

[5] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_card_monte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_card_monte)

~~~
js2
Three card monte demonstrated by Ricky Jay.

[https://youtu.be/7jKuHiY397U?t=190](https://youtu.be/7jKuHiY397U?t=190)

Cups and balls:

[https://youtu.be/QwF1ec4Ji7Y](https://youtu.be/QwF1ec4Ji7Y)

Penn and Teller doing cups and balls with clear cups and it’s no less amazing:

[https://youtu.be/8osRaFTtgHo](https://youtu.be/8osRaFTtgHo)

------
lordnacho
The bit about voting for taller people seems misplaced. There seems to be a
strong suggestion of causality, but all there's evidence for is statistical
connection.

> There’s not much doubt that some voters were influenced by the disparity in
> height... But serious statistical analysis concludes that taller
> presidential candidates are more likely to win the election, more likely to
> win re-election, and more likely — unlike Donald Trump — to win the popular
> vote.

Seems like a stretch. One of those things where predictive analytics would
dump out "height diff" as a useful factor in naively predicting who the winner
will be, but the real cause is something deeper.

~~~
gumby
This phenomenon has been observed in many other cases, such as CEOs of large
corporations.

~~~
johnsimer
IIRC 30%+ of F500 CEOs are 6'2" or taller

~~~
generalpass
I wonder how that number looks if you compared founder CEOs with replacements.

------
known
Due to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand)

------
2ion
Because in some way, we wish some things to be true. A little phantasy.

------
rubicks
Was expecting "Aw, shucks, I can't stay mad at you" love letter to the humble
Common Lisp operator. Was confused to find story illustrating psychological
phenomena at work.

~~~
agumonkey
I'm laughing at the thought of racket schemers as cons artists

~~~
naniwaduni
To be fair, some varieties of racket schemes _are_ cons.

------
fjdgegbdhd
#DropOutBloomberg is another case study for this. People are not very good at
untangling noise from the actual signal.

