PDA

View Full Version : How gullible are people?



peter eldergill
2009-Jan-30, 03:32 PM
Heh, found this on snopes...it's really quite amusing. I don't want to spoil the fun of it by telling you what it's about (don't worry, I'm not trying to see if you're gullible :p)

Pete

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-30, 03:50 PM
Yes; it is amusing. That's probably why it's been mentioned over the years many times on this board. (I get 150 hits on the chemical name)

In fact, this board has revealed more dangers than those on snopes.

Swift
2009-Jan-30, 03:52 PM
Old news and discussed many time before.

Did you know that dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/) doesn't have gullible in it?

stu
2009-Jan-30, 04:20 PM
I'm only as gullible as you say I am.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Jan-30, 05:02 PM
Did you know that dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/) doesn't have gullible in it?
Does checking if you're right count as being gullible (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=gullible&search=search)?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-30, 05:22 PM
I thought the parents in this story were gullible...

Ohio man sentenced in underwear scam (http://www.fox8.com/wjw-news-underwearsentence13009,0,2952518.story)


convicted of sexually touching children while claiming to be a market researcher who wanted to measure their underwear


I thought the original story was on the board somewhere, but I can't find it.

Fazor
2009-Jan-30, 05:26 PM
I've sure seen the article before; and I think it was here. TooSeek must have taken it, he strikes me as the panty(article) theif type. ;) Oh wait, he's an admin now. Strike that and change it to Moose.

Anyway, I can tell that if I ever have a daughter, I'm going to be the psycho over-protective type. I can't imagine ever falling for a trick like that.

Salty
2009-Jan-30, 07:40 PM
People are very gullible. I think this trait comes under the label of "Power of suggestion".
Let's face it, there's so much available information now, it's easier than ever to scam or fool people who don't have time or just don't take time to check things out.

kleindoofy
2009-Jan-30, 08:53 PM
In most cases, gullibility is synonymous with "blind with greed." Gullible people are people who think they will get something for nothing (or little), i.e. something they haven't earned or don't deserve.

This can be almost anything: money, goods, grades, positions, admiration, etc. Their greed blinds them to the one real fact of life: there's no such thing as a free meal.

This is why "gullible" people fall for scams. They always think they've received an offer that's "too good to be true," yet believe it anyway, because greed clouds their minds.

This isn't just the proverbial "Nigerian prince email" or buying the Brooklyn Bridge. Anybody who believes those stupid "buy one, get three free" advertizements is gullible. No, you're not getting three for free, you're paying for all four. No, that 36 piece silverware set for $4,00 on Ebay is not top quality. etc. etc.

Think about it and look closely at the individual cases. They boil down to greed winning out over logic.

Nobody *ever* gets something for nothing. Quite the opposite: the cheaper something is up front, the more it costs in the long run.

You only get a square deal when you work for something, one way or another: money, goods, grades, positions, admiration, etc.

So, anybody want to buy a Rolex? I get them from a cousin really cheap. ;)

KaiYeves
2009-Jan-30, 09:00 PM
Somebody wrote gullible on the ceiling at my old school. Or at least that's what they told me on my first day.

Gillianren
2009-Jan-30, 09:56 PM
In most cases, gullibility is synonymous with "blind with greed."

Many cases, I will grant you. Most? It does not explain why so many people fall for psuedoscience, which is its own form of gullibilty. Come to that, I knew someone who was actually convinced (by friends of mine) that the water on one side of the Hood Canal Bridge was salt and on the other side was fresh. No greed there. Just not very bright.

kleindoofy
2009-Jan-30, 10:11 PM
^^^^

Ok, many. ;)

As for pseudoscience, those people are getting fast, easy answers to complicated issues without investing any effort in study. That's a form of "something for nothing."

Fazor
2009-Jan-30, 10:57 PM
In most cases, gullibility is synonymous with "blind with greed."

Part of the problem, in my humble opinion, is the looseness in which people define "gullible". Here's an example:

A long time policyholder of ours comes in to the office, and says "I need to cancel my policies." The economy is in the tank, and to be honest, our rates aren't the greatest at the moment (like any industry with diverse competition, your price versus your competitors fluxuates. Overall, it works out pretty even, but the harder the economy, the more likely someone will leave every time they get a cheaper quote elsewhere).

So, as the customer service rep, you don't argue but you ask a probing question. Always ask probing questions. Even if you can't save a loss, you can keep tabs on competetor's goings-on. So you say,
"I'm sorry to hear that. Did you find a cheaper rate somewhere else?"

They come back with "Ah, I'm just messing with ya! I just need to pay my bill. You're soo gullible."

First, you never gave me a reason not to believe you. Second, because of the whole service / customer thing, you have no choice but to believe them. Can you imagine if someone asked for something, and you said "Naw, can't do that." only to find out they're not kidding?

Tricking someone with an outright lie doesn't make them (necessarily) gullible. Now if you always lie to them, and they always believe you, then yes.

Something like the link in the OP, where you give the people the information they need to know it's a lie, but they still believe you--that's gullible.

kleindoofy
2009-Jan-31, 12:00 AM
Part of the problem, in my humble opinion, is the looseness in which people define "gullible". ...
Agreed.

Perhaps one could define "gullible" as "to be relatively easily duped, when one should know better."

timb
2009-Jan-31, 12:48 AM
Anyway, I can tell that if I ever have a daughter, I'm going to be the psycho over-protective type.

Being "psycho over-protective" is a very bad thing, but why do you intend to extend this pathology only to your daughters? Pedophiles are much more likely to exhibit homosexual attraction than are non-pedophiles. The word "pedophile" comes from the Greek for "boy love(r)".

tdvance
2009-Jan-31, 02:00 AM
Hence the old saying:

you can't cheat an honest man.

Not strictly true, but mostly true--an honest man is hard to cheat.




In most cases, gullibility is synonymous with "blind with greed." Gullible people are people who think they will get something for nothing (or little), i.e. something they haven't earned or don't deserve.

This can be almost anything: money, goods, grades, positions, admiration, etc. Their greed blinds them to the one real fact of life: there's no such thing as a free meal.

This is why "gullible" people fall for scams. They always think they've received an offer that's "too good to be true," yet believe it anyway, because greed clouds their minds.

This isn't just the proverbial "Nigerian prince email" or buying the Brooklyn Bridge. Anybody who believes those stupid "buy one, get three free" advertizements is gullible. No, you're not getting three for free, you're paying for all four. No, that 36 piece silverware set for $4,00 on Ebay is not top quality. etc. etc.

Think about it and look closely at the individual cases. They boil down to greed winning out over logic.

Nobody *ever* gets something for nothing. Quite the opposite: the cheaper something is up front, the more it costs in the long run.

You only get a square deal when you work for something, one way or another: money, goods, grades, positions, admiration, etc.

So, anybody want to buy a Rolex? I get them from a cousin really cheap. ;)

Gillianren
2009-Jan-31, 02:01 AM
Being "psycho over-protective" is a very bad thing, but why do you intend to extend this pathology only to your daughters? Pedophiles are much more likely to exhibit homosexual attraction than are non-pedophiles. The word "pedophile" comes from the Greek for "boy love(r)".

That's interesting, because the statistics actually show that a majority of sexual abuse is an older male relative or friend of the family abusing a female.

Euniculus
2009-Jan-31, 02:59 AM
Homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than the population in general. :mad:

Nick Theodorakis
2009-Jan-31, 03:15 AM
... Pedophiles are much more likely to exhibit homosexual attraction than are non-pedophiles. The word "pedophile" comes from the Greek for "boy love(r)".

(1) DO you have a cite for the first statement?

(2) "παιδί" means "child" in Greek.

Nick

Whirlpool
2009-Jan-31, 05:41 AM
Tricking someone with an outright lie doesn't make them (necessarily) gullible. Now if you always lie to them, and they always believe you, then yes.

What makes people do it over and over again ?

timb
2009-Jan-31, 08:17 AM
(1) DO you have a cite for the first statement?


Girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys. (http://www.yesican.org/stats.html)

Despite high prevalence rates of child sexual abuse (CSA), which occurs to approximately 1 in 3 females and 1 in 10 males under the age of 18
PMID: 12836735

Males with a preference for homosexual sex are only about 5% of the adult male population, so if the CSA-committing population abused in the same proportions female victims should outnumber males by 19 to 1, not 3 to 1. Of course it is possible that the homo-oriented CSA perpetrators are only 5% of the CSA-committing population but have about six times as many victims each as their hetero-oriented brethren, but from the point of view of victimization risk that is moot.

timb
2009-Jan-31, 08:19 AM
That's interesting, because the statistics actually show that a majority of sexual abuse is an older male relative or friend of the family abusing a female.

And what would the relevance of that to my statement be?

Gillianren
2009-Jan-31, 05:22 PM
And what would the relevance of that to my statement be?

A majority of abusers go after girls. Further, most boys are molested by serial molesters, men who go after multiple boys, which further skews the statistics. Even further, calling it "homosexual attraction" isn't quite right; it's true that it's same-sex attraction in those cases, but most molesters of boys are not attracted to adults of any kind. A strong minority of molesters of girls, too, come to that.

peter eldergill
2009-Jan-31, 06:01 PM
Hmmm...my silly thread about dihydrogen oxide seems to have been skewed a bit...

Pete

Gigabyte
2009-Jan-31, 06:06 PM
You think?

Gigabyte
2009-Jan-31, 06:07 PM
I thought the parents in this story were gullible...


I blame NEO for the sidetrack.

tdvance
2009-Jan-31, 10:49 PM
Since gullibility is what the thread is about, I think it's Yoda who sidetracked us!

kleindoofy
2009-Jan-31, 11:01 PM
Well, why don't we just start a new thread dedicated to finding out who sidetracked this thread, and re-dedicate this thread to gullibility? ;)

Gandalf223
2009-Feb-01, 07:25 AM
LOL! I'd seen that before, but when I saw the thread's title -- How gullible are people? -- I thought it had to be a political thing.......

Whirlpool
2009-Feb-01, 07:57 AM
Girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys. (http://www.yesican.org/stats.html)

Despite high prevalence rates of child sexual abuse (CSA), which occurs to approximately 1 in 3 females and 1 in 10 males under the age of 18
PMID: 12836735

Males with a preference for homosexual sex are only about 5% of the adult male population, so if the CSA-committing population abused in the same proportions female victims should outnumber males by 19 to 1, not 3 to 1. Of course it is possible that the homo-oriented CSA perpetrators are only 5% of the CSA-committing population but have about six times as many victims each as their hetero-oriented brethren, but from the point of view of victimization risk that is moot.


Could be because Males have high libidos than females? :think:

Krel
2009-Feb-01, 08:44 PM
There is always the Birdman Weapons Systems HoMeBoy NyTe-SyTes incident: http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-gag.html

Sadly, the Birdmaron Weapons Systems site is no more, a pity, as his products were very funny.

David.

Salty
2009-Feb-02, 04:40 AM
I love the way some of these different threads wander around, like a line of ants at a picnic.

Jens
2009-Feb-02, 05:40 AM
Speaking of gullibility, I think a lot of people have fallen for the one about "till death do us part" or something like that. :)

kleindoofy
2009-Feb-02, 08:32 PM
... I think a lot of people have fallen for the one about "till death do us part" or something like that. :)
Yes, between two humans that can a huge falicy.

However, between a human and a car he or she owns, it can be very true. One way or another.

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Feb-02, 08:42 PM
How gullible are people? Why, last week I sold the Brooklyn Bridge -- to three different people! :lol:

Edited to add: The above is based on the American benchmark for gullibility, the selling of the Brooklyn Bridge. What are some of the expressions in your country(ies)?

tdvance
2009-Feb-02, 09:55 PM
I don't know if there is a French expression regarding selling the Eiffel Tower, but I recall a documentary years ago about someone who "sold" it to several scrap metal dealers.

timb
2009-Feb-03, 02:10 AM
A majority of abusers go after girls. Further, most boys are molested by serial molesters, men who go after multiple boys, which further skews the statistics. Even further, calling it "homosexual attraction" isn't quite right; it's true that it's same-sex attraction in those cases, but most molesters of boys are not attracted to adults of any kind. A strong minority of molesters of girls, too, come to that.

You can't argue that the abusers are not more likely to exhibit homosexual attraction than the population because the victims are mostly victims of heterosexual abuse. You should familarize yourself with the base rate fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy). I've already acknowledged that perpetrators of homosexual child abuse might have more victims on average.

What matters in relation to my original point is that boys aren't overwhelmingly less likely to be victims than girls. I'm not sure what the 3:1 ratio is based on. If it includes cases where the victim is close to the age of consent then the ratio among younger victims would likely be smaller.