The WELL: inkwell.vue.344: Stephen Greenspan - Annals of Gullibility

#70: Jennifer Simon (fingers) Sun 25 Jan 09 19:55

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:55:00 PST

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. [Read entire topic]

#69: Linda Castellani (castle) Sat 24 Jan 09 17:26

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:26:00 PST

Thanks for being here and for such a fascinating discussion. [Read entire topic]

#68: Stephen Greenspan (doctorgullible) Sat 24 Jan 09 01:42

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:42:00 PST

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 [Read entire topic]

#67: Stephen Greenspan (doctorgullible) Fri 23 Jan 09 05:26

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:26:00 PST

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. [Read entire topic]

#66: Teneo? (robertflink) Thu 22 Jan 09 19:22

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:22:00 PST

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

Smart!! [Read entire topic]

#65: Steve Bjerklie (stevebj) Thu 22 Jan 09 13:45

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:45:00 PST

>>> 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. [Read entire topic]

#64: Stephen Greenspan (doctorgullible) Thu 22 Jan 09 11:37

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:37:00 PST

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)? [Read entire topic]

#63: Dodge (clotilde) Thu 22 Jan 09 11:13

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:13:00 PST

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. [Read entire topic]

#62: Elisabeth (wickett) Thu 22 Jan 09 03:25

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:25:00 PST

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. [Read entire topic]

#61: Stephen Greenspan (doctorgullible) Wed 21 Jan 09 16:37

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:37:00 PST

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). [Read entire topic]