Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
oh, I'd have to go back and reread it to remind myself. One thing,
iirc, is him saying that people feel bad if you ask them for something
and they can't do it, so they're more likely to agree to another thing,
so after I asked them for a donation, I'd also ask them for their
vote. and there were at least half a dozen things like that.
  

    
That's a great application of the idea, Sharon!

Somewhere, recently, there was a report of work doing neurophysiology
relating to trust and reciprocity, that said feeling trusted lit up
something pleasurable in us, leading to wanting to reciprocate the trust, to
bring about more.
  

    
If the scope of the topic is expanded a bit we might include
day-to-day scams.  Would wigs, foundation garments, cosmetics, capped
teeth, elevator shoes, etc., might qualify as such.  

Harold Kushner refers to "forever" as a code word for "48 hours".  I
recall a country song of little note with the line: "don't worry if
it's true or not, the truth is I don't care.  And as for me, flattery
will get you anywhere"

That brings up the gentle (genteel?)cons that serve as social
lubricant.  If we all do it, is it a con anymore?  I have heard that
these "graces" can be a problem for those with Autism and related
syndromes. 
  

    
Well, I do devote a chapter to recreational gullibility, such as
watching boring TV shows (the Oscars) or going on unenjoyable vacations
(Disneyworld) mainly because society defines these things  positively.
David Chase, the producer in charge of the Sopranos, wrote that the
purpose of TV hype "is to make the boring interesting"     

There is a hilarious 1925 book I describe by Ring Lardner titled
"Gullibles' Travels" about a middle class Chicago couple, Mr. and Mrs.
Gullible, who take a train trip to Palm Beach and stay in a fancy hotel
because they read about how exclusive it is. Instead of being accepted
in society they are ignored and have a miserable time. 

Lardner writes in the book's Preface that "anyone with money who can't
crash Palm Beach would be blackballed from the Rotary Club". The same
could be said I'm sure about various consumer fads, including hem
lengths.

It is true that people with autism and related syndromes tend to be
unaware of various societal norms and expectations, but with regard to
unawareness of consumer fads that may be one of the positive benefits
of having autism. 
  

    

Exactly, an autistic person, such as one of my acquaintance, took acting
lessons to fit in as he chose.  In his case, it was a highly intentional 
activity that the rest of us might emulate to our benefit.
  

    
I more or less took the day off from everything yesterday for Obama's
inauguration.  Something about how he revitalized the idea of social
justice (and how he is going to rethink Guantanamo) reminds me that
your work on gullibility ought to make us think very hard about police
procedure.  You've talked a little about it but maybe it would be a
good time to go into a little more detail about what happened to
Lapointe.  Personally I think that even our debate about torture needs
to think about what it is we want interrogations in general to
accomplish, which shouldn't be false confessions; and this does in my
opinion also bear upon our national debate about torture.

In some ways torture doesn't seem much like a gullibility issue --
except in the sense that we the people are being made to be gullible in
thinking that it catches the real criminals -- but based on your work
I think that even within bad police interrogations, gullible people are
more vulnerable to the ways in which "extraordinary techniques" can be
leveraged to produce confessions and so forth.  

To bring it back to Obama, I read that when he was a state legislator
in Illinois, he supported videotaping of police interrogations.  
  

    

Well we probably all took the day off to watch the inauguration
yesterday, although it wouldn't bother me if we concluded that this
conversation (which I've enjoyed immensely) has run its natural course 

At one point I was on the fence between Hillary and Obama, but when I
learned that he was largely responsible for getting the Illinois
legislature to mandate taping of police interrogations, that settled it
for me. That is such a decent and necessary--but politically
difficult--stance to take, that I decided this is one smart,
courageous, morally-grounded and effective political leader. 

Police procedurals in interrogating suspects, particularly suspects
who have cognitive impairments, is what first interested me in the
topic of gullibility. It is also what convinced me that it is not
enough to approach gullibility as if it were a kind of global
personality trait that one brings to all situations. 

Rather you need to look at the specific micro-context and see the
forces operating on a given individual in that micro-context (not only
does the context vary but the same individual might respond differently
depending on the cognitive, personality and emotional forces that are
activated in that micro-context)

I’ve delved into the literature on police and military interrogations,
both from the psychology side but also from the police and military
side. There is agreement from both sides as to what is done in such
interrogations (one long string of lies and deceptions from beginning
to end) but there is disagreement as to why these procedures work, the
extent to which hey sometimes result in false positives (innocent
people admitting to crimes they didn’t commit), and the arguments for
or against taping. 

The police argument in favor of using deceptive interrogation
techniques is that they activate a suspect’s guilty conscience, and
thus cause him or her to clean. Police (and  John E. Reid, the
co-inventor of the technique-- www.reid.com ) claim that this technique
has never caused a non-guilty person to confess

To me, that claim is patently absurd, as it has done just that in many
cases, especially with vulnerable suspects, such as youth or people
with cognitive impairments such as Richard Lapointe [more on that
later]

The police argument against requiring taping of interrogations (either
audio or video) is that it is too much trouble and expense to go to.
Given how ever-present and inexpensive video (not to mention audio)
recording equipment has become, that claim is also absurd. 
Anyway, taping is mandated in virtually all other Western countries,
so it can hardly be that onerous a chore to carry out. 

In fact, the obvious real reason for being against taping is that it
makes it easier to challenge inappropriately or illegally carried-out
interrogations. Of course that is also the  main argument for taping,
although a secondary by-product is that it can also be a very effective
teaching tool in training police to conduct interrogations properly.

Interestingly, in places where taping is done, either by court or
legislative mandate or voluntarily, the tapes support the prosecution
version over 90% of the time. In the Bronx (where I grew up), taping is
done voluntarily for the simple reason that the Bronx is now very
heavily minority and there is a tendency among jurors to assume police
misconduct. So taping can make it easier to rebut unjustified claims of
misconduct.

The legal requirement for prosecutors is not to seek convictions but
to seek justice(unlike defense attorneys who are mandated to seek
acquittals, as long as they do not knowingly allow perjury). So one
would think that prosecutors would be interested in blocking false
convictions, both because it would be unjust to convict an innocent
person but also because it means that a guilty person is going
unpunished. 

Unfortunately, it is a rare prosecutor who has the courage to take
such a stance (the moral greatness of Earl Warren can be seen in an
incident when he was a prosecutor and he threw out a confession
obtained from a man accused of killing his own father, because he did
not consider the confession to have been obtained validly—of course
those were the days when the psychological pressure of the Reid
technique was preceded by actual torture)

Just as an aside, Phillip—gullibility enters into torture in that the
suspect confesses not just because of pain but because he is led to
believe his interrogators intend to kill him. That assumption is
probably incorrect in most cases, although of course the person
sometimes does die (probably in most cases unintentionally)

This is taking too much time, so I won’t go much into the Richard
Lapointe case. Basically, there the police used the Reid technique to
bring about the following false (gullible) beliefs: (a) that they had
overwhelming evidence of guilt (when in fact they had none), and (b)
that they would put his wife in jail and his child into foster care (in
fact, they had neither that intent or power). 

So his cognitive limitations came into play in that he couldn’t see
through those two lies. Also he failed to understand that he was free
to leave at any time, and also to go to the bathroom (they told him he
couldn’t) Social intelligence would have enabled him to better
understand his rights, to see the ploys as deceptive, and also to
appreciate the great danger his continued cooperation placed him in. 

Emotion (and state) entered in, as he was in an absolute panic state
(the Reid technique is intended to induce panic and hopelessness) and
also he was exhausted after an all-night session (when exhausted, one's
will to resist tends to crumble)   
 
  

    
Thank you, Stephen and Phillip, for an engrossing conversation. While
we're turning the virtual spotlight to a new discussion today, please
continue here as long as you like. 
  

    
This has been very interesting indeed.  Thanks!  The last couple of remarks
made me think about other aspecs of the legal system.  Perhaps witness
selection consultants are gullibility detection services on some level (and
bias experts on another.)
  

    

I've enjoyed it immensely also.

If you don't mind, I have one last question on the subject of gullibility:

Are we being gullible when it comes to Obama?  He seems to pass test after
test, and as much as I would love to just take him at his word, because of
my life experience, and because of the previous administration, and
because of the vary nature of politics, I'm feeling wary.  I haven't yet 
seen a need to feel that way, but it seems healthy to me.

And not everyone seems to feel like he's such a great guy.  I've been 
astounded by some of the snarky comments I've seen on the Internet that 
I have no way to verify.

Trust until proven untrustworthy is the line I'm trying to follow.
  

    
Well I'm willing to keep it going at least until Saturday (on Sunday,
I leave for a week-long trial in Memphis and won't be available much,
so it would probably make sense to shut the conversation down on
Saturday afternoon)

..............................

I do address jury consultants in my book as gullibility and bias
detectors. I discuss a book by Kressel and Kressel titled STACK AND
SWAY (stacking is picking jurors with a particular bias; swaying is
selecting arguments to activate that bias)

A gullible jury is overly influenced by specious evidence of innocence
when a rational verdict is Guilty; or conversely is overly influenced
by specious evidence of guilt when a rational verdict is Innocent.This
is analogous to a Piagetian conservation experiment where you create an
optical illusion that a round ball of clay has more clay than a clay
rolled into a cigar shape, when in fact they started out as equal sized
balls of clay.

A bit of specious evidence that almost always produces a gullible
result in juries in the US is a confession. Even when obtained in the
most suspect of circumstances (as with Richard Lapointe), this will
almost always result in a guilty verdict. 

The Louise Woodard trial in Boston (British Nanny trial) is one where
the defense lawyers picked a smart jury, thinking they would buy their
scientific explanation for the signs of brain trauma to the child--
Matthew Eappen--whose head she struck against a tile floor, but it
turned out to have been a mistake (the smart jury found the
prosecution's more impressive scientific testimony to be more credible)
(on the streets, working class passersby told the defense attorneys
they would have acquitted the working class defendant and they resented
Matthew's MD mom for not staying home with her son)

..........

As for being gullible towards Obama, there is nothing wrong with
hoping. (Voting for McCain-Palin; now that would have been gullible in
the hope engendered was based on nothing but rhetoric). Certainly,
Obama gives every sign of being up to the job (if he can solve our
problems quickly, then maybe I will start believing in miracles again).
I was a little disappointed in his speech, though. Lacked Lincoln's
poetry and simple eloquence (as if we will ever be lucky enough to see
another Lincoln).
  

    

Thank you for this interesting conversation.  It has caused me to look 
even more carefully at my investing bias, especially patterns formed in 
childhood that aren't as quiescent as I might wish.

I also wish to thank Linda for her openness and clarity.
  

    
I don't post very much in the well either. Just read everything from
my last post to here. And I'm moved to catch up so forgive me if I'm 
getting away from present discussion - I'll get to it at the end.

First. As to the posting an admission of gullibility and nobody
responds. I agree to the feeling expressed. But I have it all the time.
I often post and people keep on as if I'm invisible. Like they've
bozoed me and didn't read. That still bothers me some but I decided a
while ago that it didn't matter. Don't sweat the small stuff as they
say. So. I said something and nobody was interested. Maybe what I wrote
said it all and there was nothing further to say. Or maybe they just
couldn't relate. Or maybe their minds were somewhere else. And having
been the subject sometimes of people who DID reply - insultingly - to
me. I had someone follow me and insult me every post I made when I
first started on the Well and it became really horrifying. I actually
quit the Well for a year or so because of it. And having somebody send
me a detailed several page email telling me how badly I post and how I
should not post in that topic again because I was so bad at it. I've
been through that and decided. Heck with them. So, I see the Well as a
place to talk about things I don't have anybody else to talk about. You
know. You have friends and family and acquiantances and they get
glassy eyed with you because you are enthusing on something they have
NO interest in. I can find a topic about just about anything here.
That's why I stay. Heck with the bozos.

As for Obama...
I voted for Obama because I felt this country NEEDED a change. A big
change. I've been a Republican most of my life. I happen to think that
tho he did some things that destroyed American confidence, Nixon
actually did a fairly good job. I think Reagan did a decent job. I
think Bush Sr. managed to get through his years without doing much
harm. But I remember when Bush Jr started and 9/11. I was posting on a
Pratchett personal blog site and most of the people there were British.
At first I tried to defend Bush but I had to stop going to the site
because I was eventually embarrassed that Bush did so much that I just
couldn't stomach. The war on terrorism just made me mad. How can you
bomb a country when the terrorists are everywhere? And it was SO clear
he was attacking Iraq because he planned to do so from the very start.
So he could get approval. He learned from his father during Desert
Storm that he could get approval by attacking a middle eastern country.
He was just too ready for Iraq. And so many dead. And for what? They
don't want us there. Did it fix anything? Did it really get the US
anything? And as for domestic decisions. OMG! I can't help but compare
the Bush 'empire' with the Kennedy one. I read a book once on John
Kennedy which was written before his death. The last chapter cheerfully
predicted a regime of John and then Robert and then Ted as a shining
future. Would they really have been? Possibly not. It's like a great
movie followed by the Bush empire which is a shoddy remake. 

I am reminded of Queen Elizabeth the first who took over a bankrupt
country with no military to speak of and no confidence and divided so
many ways. Unrest. Poverty. Weak. And when she died, it was the most
powerful and wealthy country in the world. And look at the people who
went to incredible lenghts to keep her from being Queen.

You never know. Can't say what Obama is going to be like until he does
things. When he faces the challenges. When he makes his decisions.
When he comes up with solutions. What Obama is, is hope. A new
beginning. We won't know how Obama will do until he does it. 

I hope. 
  

    
I've been thinking a lot about leaders, and what constitutes a
competent vs an incompetent leader. In part this is a gullibility
issue, but it also a broader issue of foolish vs wise action (I see
gull. as a sub-type of foolish action, one that I term "social-induced)

Foolish action I define as behavior that fails to take into account
obvious risk and wise action is behavior that takes into account hidden
risk. Wisdom is an aspect of (non-IQ) "intelligence" that benefits
from experience (with social systems and people most typically).  It
can have a positive component (choosing the best course of action) but
from a survival standpoint, its most important quality is in
recognizing incorrect (i.e., potentially dangerous) actions that should
be avoided. Therefore when we talk about a wise person or a wise
action, we typically are talking about a "brake" against behavior that
could turn out to n have disastrous consequences

When we talk about outgoing Pres. Bush as a fool, what are we talking
about? It is mainly his decision to go into Iraq without for a second
appreciating the difficulties, the costs and the consequences. To some
extent this was a matter of gullibility (socially induced by bad advice
from Cheney , Rumsfed et al)but it goes to a broader lack of good
judgment, affected by cognition (profound ignorance), emotion (desire
to one-up his [much wiser] dad on getting rid of Saddam), personality
(impulsive shoot from the hip) in a particular situational context
(advice from Cheney et al) that pulled for a bad decision.

A president I consider equally foolish (contrary to the usual
lionization of him) is JFK.  Bay of Pigs is held up Janis in his book
GROUPTHINK as the "perfect fiasco" (i.e., a result of profound unwisdom
by a callow president)and Vietnam is not very far behind

Eisenhower is generally not thought of as a great president but he
resisted pressure from the French to bail them out of Vietnam (he
understood the perils of getting bogged down in a landwar in Asia) and
does anyone for a single minute think he would have been foolish enough
to have proceeded with the half-assed plan presented to JFK
(gullibility entered into JFK's foolish action in that he was falsely
persuaded it was Ike's plan)

Okay, so here is my bottom-line requirement for being a good (not
necessarily) a great president: have the wisdom to recognize the
dangers in a course of action and the strength to resist it no matter
how appealing it is sold to you

Example: Lincoln was pressured to respond strongly to England for some
thing they were doing (blockade ignoring, etc) that were sympathetic
to the Confederacy. He resisted that pressure and eventually England
backed off when the military tide turned against the Confederacy (the
Emancipation procl. also helped as political sentimentin England
shifted in favor of the Union). If Lincoln had lacked the wisdom to
hold off, we likely would not be living in the US as we know it today

So here is a good reason to have hope for Obama: he seems to me to
have the judgment, wisdom and temperamenal equanimity to resist the
quick macho fix (does anyone believe that about McCain)?


     

  
  

    
>>> A president I consider equally foolish (contrary to the usual
lionization of him) is JFK. <<<

I've been thinking a lot about JFK lately, for a couple of reasons. He
brought "the best and the brightest" with him to Washington -- yet the
best and the brightest couldn't prevent the deepening involvement in
Vietnam and couldn't move the civil rights rock more than a couple of
inches (it was LBJ who got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts
passed). True, the best and the brightest performed admirably during
the Cuban Missile Crisis and probably prevented the End of the World,
but they also got us into the Bay of Pigs, as <doctorgullible> points
out. 

Obama has brought a new best and brightest crew with him to the
capital, and I can't help but be only cautiously optimistic. Really
smart people can do some really smart things -- and some really stupid
things, too. On paper, nearly all of the Obama appointments and
nominations seem to be exactly the right people for the job, but I
might have felt just that way in 1960-61 about Kennedy's people had I
been of voting age then. 

Years ago at a conference, I heard Steward Brand asked what he had
changed his mind about in his lifetime. His answer: he had changed his
mind about putting great faith in smart, charismatic leaders. He didn't
mention the Kennedys specifically, but I think they were his
reference. 
  

    
>he had changed his mind about putting great faith in smart,
charismatic leaders.<

Smart!!
  

    
Smart and wise are not necessarily the same thing. That has been
Robert Sternberg's theme in many books (such as SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENCE
and WHY ARE WE SO STUPID? ) over the years  That is also the theme I
have been exploring. While people of low intelligence are at higher
risk of behaving foolishly (i.e., unwisely), every human being, no
matter his or her IQ, has the potential of doing something very dumb,
especially when social pressures pull for a gullible response. I  agree
that charisma (JFK, Clinton) is no guarantee of character or wisdom,
but it helps get one elected and hopefully Obama's charisma will help
him get some of his ambitious agenda (health care) implemented.   
  

    
SAYONARA

Guess I'm going to have to shut this down. I'm off for a several-day
trial in Tennessee, and we have exceeded the two weeks that Dana set
this up for

When I agreed to do this, I wasn't sure I would enjoy it, but to my
surprise I have enjoyed it very much  Certainly I've gotten a lot of
ideas out of this, including a few topics for my somewhat dormant blog
(to access that, go to www.stephen-greenspan.com)

I am at an age (67) where scholars tend to wind down, but I have only
very recently stumbled on my real topic--gullibility and the broader
problem of foolish action. 

So if i can stay healthy I hope to do half a dozen more books along
the lines of (1) financial gullibility, (2) gullibility and disability,
(3) political gullibility and foolishness, (4) same for criminal
justice, (5) gullibility and childrearing, and (6)what I hope will be
my magnum opus--ANATOMY OF FOOLISHNESS

Ironically, the notoriety that has come out of my Madoff paper has
given me a platform for getting publishers interested in these ideas
(at least something good has come out of that fiasco)

Hopefully I will be invited back as one or more of these become a
reality

Feel free to contact me off-Well 

Thanks for being so WELLcoming, 

Steve Greenspan
  

    

Thanks for being here and for such a fascinating discussion.
  

    
Yes, lots of food for thought here, thanks so much, Steve, and also to
you, Linda, for what you had to say about your own experiences.