And, if you read the article, everyone's gut reaction was that this man was an unassuming, down to earth, great guy, and they got along with him very well at first. The article makes clear that their gut reaction failed them.
"But one example of the unconscious bias that still exists was a Title VII suit brought in the late 70s, and the plaintiffs were women who had not succeeded in getting middle management jobs at AT&T. They did very, very well on all the standard criteria, but they flunked disproportionately at the last stage, and what was that last stage? It was what was called a “total person test.” The “total person test” was an executive interviewing the candidate for promotion. And why were women dropping out disproportionately? It was because of a certain discomfort that the executive had in dealing with someone who is different. If he’s interviewing a man, well, he sort of knows this person is just like me and he’s comfortable. But if it’s a woman, or a member of a minority group, he feels uncomfortable. This person is a stranger to him and that shows up in how he rates the candidate."
[0] - YMMV
When does trusting your gut mean you don't know you are biased? Everyone is biased, get over it. If you are living with someone - yes please trust your gut, live with who you want to live with.
as per the article the move in happened quickly and they were seemingly desperate to get someone in to cover the rent.
I think guys in these cases would be at a disadvantage.
> I'd [be more?] likely let to a woman than a man
There's your gender bias. When you are more likely to let to one gender (female), than another (male).
I think you're arguing for the opposite of what you're saying. Con artists rely completely on our subconscious judgement, rather than rational thinking, and second guessing it is often the key to realizing you're a mark.
Not trusting your gut instincts, but rather taking the time to think things through rationally and come up with a basis for your judgements is what I am arguing for.
Is it really rational to reject those 10 roommates for no good reason to avoid the 1 in a million hellish roommates?
But you're doing what makes sense for yourself. Why would you consider a random stranger above yourself in such a situation?
And the experiences of the victims in the article reinforce this point, at least in the first encounters: a courtly gentleman, he was very respectful.
Actually that's the thing that threw me off. I mean why would a successful, well-adjusted "gentleman" even be in a situation where the best option for him is to live in a shared apartment with a woman considerably younger than him? Sure he gave her a reason, but well, he has to come up with _something_ doesn't he?
To me it seems much more likely that she agreed to him as her new room-mate out of desperate need for another person paying half of the rent.
I find the dismissal of "gut feeling" in these answers a bit ridiculous (when it comes to non-professional arrangements). Sure, you might be biased, but if you're not feeling comfortable living with someone don't move in with them!
When I was 35 I was getting divorced, and for simplicity, I moved into a shared apartment with a bunch of students (as I had to pay for the apartment with my wife, I didn't want to pay rent for two full apartments at the same time). I was a professional software Java developer at the time.
I appreciate 35 isn't 55, and I appreciate Java software developer isn't successful lawyer, but I can still see it happening even if I was older and in an even more lucrative profession. I mean people do have strange times in their lives, and not everyone is rich just because they're successful (e.g. divorce, health issues, downturn in the job market, bad decisions, etc.)
But isn't this your logic/rational mind kicking in? I think you're making my point that trusting gut feelings (a well-adjusted gentleman) isn't reliable, and taking some time to calmly and rationally assess the situation (the quick background check the victim's mother did for example) is a much better alternative.
You're right that being in a desperate need for a roommate, for financial reasons, may have been a major factor here. But again, psychopaths are manipulative and able to choose their victims and spot their weaknesses. Bachman may well have sensed this was a great opportunity, and pushed the right buttons (immediately writing a check).
Also, psychopaths don't have a startle reflex (but sociopaths do). So, drop a dish and see if they jump.
http://drreidmeloy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2002_Auton...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/criminal-minds/201301/d...
In other words, a gut reaction isn’t proof of anything, and neither is a lack of a gut reaction, BUT... when it happens, and when it’s a high risk situation, listen to your gut.
The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence
https://www.amazon.com/Other-Survival-Signals-Protect-Violen...
I'd say there is a learning curve associated with 'gut' instincts. If your parents were good ones, you'd have acquired such knowledge earlier than I ever did, which to say was much later than ideal... But once you have dealt with enough assholes and full blown psychopaths, your 'gut' is better at picking up the subtle clues.
Then you can start seeing thru the surface impressions easier - I'd say the people you speak of just hadn't had enough adversity in their life yet - and from a BS New Age point of view, that's what allowed this guy to install himself in their lives, to provide them with some life lesson they needed to go through. I'm certainly not blaming the victim - it's just that if they don't take away a useful life lesson then they're missing out on extracting some value from the experience.
I empathize with the people in the article immensely. I'd just say they were too trusting, too 'liberal' (in all the associated stereotypes) and their 'gut' was dumb/inexperienced. The psychopaths/Machiavellians I've had to deal with were not involved in my life as much as a co-tenant would be, but they were close enough. And I consciously picked up little clues to their essential nature over time, but kept not integrating them into a larger more comprehensive picture till it all became a crisis. It is acting on those clues fast enough that is key, and that requires learning through experience.
tldr; there are book smarts and there are street smarts. Both have utility and to rely heavily on one and discount the other is unwise. Street smarts involve training your gut to deal with the jackasses and worse you will encounter in life.