Born to Be Conned | Hacker News Reader

Born to Be Conned

nytimes.com

55 pointskawera23 comments

I liked how this article started out talking about interesting anecdotes of people being conned and very gracefully transitioned to the longest running cons in the world (organized religion).

Now that I think of it - I think this article itself is a great example of a short con.

You start reading it, convinced that it's an interesting story about how easy we humans are convinced of falsehood by a good tale told by a very small portion of the population who are excellent liars and exploitative criminals.

All of a sudden, the topic is deftly repointed to the subject of religion, something that the current global majority does not believe is a lie.

And I didn't even realize it until about 30 mins after I read it!

Very well done.

All of a sudden, the topic is deftly repointed to the subject of religion, something that the current global majority does not believe is a lie.

They kind of do, though. If you take a religious person, they will (unless they're some kind of polyglot religious type) tell you that the vast majority of all the religions that have ever existed were a lie. 99% of them. More than that. They'll tell you that very nearly every religion, ever, is a lie.

"Incorrect", perhaps. The number that would say "a lie" about nearly every religion, ever, is considerably smaller.

My point in that phrase was mainly that active practitioners of a given religion don't believe that _their_ religion is a lie.

Is it just me or does the physicist flying to meet the south american model fall into the "can't con an honest man" bracket that the author thinks often doesn't apply? He must have noticed that attractive models in his own country weren't lining up to date him, so what did he think was going on here?

The art dealer story had a similar ring, and they mention Bernie Madoff in passing, someone who was beating the market for years, which apparently most clients assumed meant he had access to info to use for insider trading.

I was thinking the same thing about all of them except the girl who's boyfriend fabricated his life story for her.

This article about the Dove ad is still a brilliant more direct discussion on how people are broken: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html

TLP is brilliant as usual, but seems a bit depressed to me. The message "stare hard at the painful reality instead of comforting lies" might not be good advice for many people, especially us geeky folks who are already biased toward taking ugly truths too seriously.

"... as more of the world is explained — and ends up being not so divine after all ..."

I don't understand this sweeping statement by the author (who seems between the lines to be struggling with her own issues of faith and belief, and hence had to write a book about how gullible humans are).

Is she saying that something, once explained, can no longer be divine?

That does seem to be the implication. Personally, however, I disagree. I'm an atheist, and I still find wonder in the things that science explains, and I've always assumed that that feeling of wonder is along the lines of what religious people feel.

I'm also certain that I could (and have successfully) argue the point that religion and divinity and a relationship with god are in no way affected by scientific knowledge, regardless of what some fraction of very religious folks would have you think (I do not mean that I could argue successfully with that particular fraction - just those who are on the fence on the matter).

Wonder and divinity are not the same things.

People used to believe lightning was what happened when the gods became angry. Now we know the source of lightning is an electrostatic discharge.

I think you're putting words in her mouth, so to speak. That paragraph begins by repeating a statement about God being found in the cracks between knowledge. I know I've read this elsewhere, it's not a new idea. The rest of the paragraph just restates this in a way that I think is very fair.

My direct answer: yes. IMO divinity is just magic backing a particular narrative. As we discover and accept alternative explanations for why things are the way they are, that magic disappears and the narrative loses power.

> God being found in the cracks between knowledge

See here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Yes, unless the explanation is that God directly caused whatever event happens to be the subject of discussion. That's what "divine" means.

Which is, of course, not to say that said event cannot be wondrous, or awesome, or terrible. Just that it can no longer accurately be considered divine.

This article would be far more interesting if it showed ways of picking out inconsistencies even when embroiled in blind belief.

Does the article explain what the play on Joan was? I can't find it.

My guess is get close enough to find the personal details necessary for identity theft.

Long cons like that fascinate me. Such a large investment, especially of time, with real risk!

Maybe nothing more than the pleasure and value of her company (and share her wealth), just someone who wanted a mate and bluffed about his accomplishments.

The same con that spouses around the world play.

As the connectedness of the world increases, we are all going to have to improve our epistemological immune systems.

Ah, the oldest profession in the world: Fleecing Rubes.

Yes, but it's saying we are all rubes.

The author is "Maria Konnikova"...seriously? ...hmmmm...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com