Hacker News Reader

Comment by etempleton | Hacker News Reader

My approach to detecting fraud is to always assume the worst possible reason why someone did something or why something happened. Always be looking for the angle. You will detect fraud and manipulations and also a bunch of manipulations that aren’t there at all. In psychological circles this is called catastrophic thinking.

It is a hell of a way to live.

View on HN

What about just applying that reason only when people want something from you.

Most people don't want anything from you. Some people like just chatting. Salesmen will feel smothering and uncomfortable because they want something from you. Advertisements trigger me because it's so obvious (in my mind) they want something from you. News feels this way too.

How can I tell? The same cues that fool people who focus on the surface-level: flashiness, bravado, loudness, taking the subject matter to things I do not care about. Trying to make me feel emotions (fomo, FUD, even excitement).

You could use it as dating advice: people are turned off when you want something from them too much.

Not all that glitters is gold.

Except a smart scammer won't do it as a hard sell and look like they need you. They know as well as anyone that aggressive sales look suspicious. Madoff waited for people to come to him.

I was reading some Madoff stuff the other day - I think generally true, but he had his share of "one of a kind offer invest this week"

Pickpockets work by just chatting with you while someone else does the work. Stay vigilant!

I don't think you're claiming otherwise, but just to be clear, this is generally perceived as a bad thing, psychologically, along the lines of OCD/paranoia/anxiety. This is not a healthy approach, and it's concerning that some responders below seem to think it's a good idea.

depends if it gives you anxiety. I think the healthy approach is "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best"

I don't need to live in constant fear of the worst, but it helps to be prepared for it

IMHO that's pretty far from OP' description of a viewpoint.

That's not catastrophic thinking then. Catastrophic thinking tends to fixate on irrational concerns, like, "Did I run over a person on my drive home and not notice" or "is that stranger planning to kill me?".

"prepare for the worst" is super vague, because the worst is unbounded in implausibility.

Unlikely, but not impossible. That is how I would describe my thinking when not on medication. Worrying about if I ran over someone without realizing it is an exact worry I have had.

Do you mind sharing what medication has worked for you and any downsides you've experienced?

Escitalopram has worked well for me. I don't really experience any side effects, but it did take a few months to adjust and feel totally normal. Some sleepiness and a feeling like I could not concentrate fully during that break in period, but both of those subsided.

No, and to be clear, this is not a good approach to life. I was being a bit glib in my comment. I am not advocating for anyone to actually think in this way. I do indeed suffer from OCD/paranoia/anxiety, though it is currently well managed with medication.

For anyone that actually thinks in this way, as I do, I recommend seeking help. It took me half my life to actually get help and I realized after being on medication just how bad my anxiety was. It is good to be cautious, but when you see daggers everywhere it is probably time to get help.

Good point. To add an exception to the original article then, perhaps the only general method to detect fraud is the trivial method: assume everything is fraud.

In practice though for most goals it's probably better to trade off Type 1 vs Type 2 error.

I mean ... at some level everything today is some kind of "fraud" ... everything that is sold to you is not sold to you out of altruism, but because somebody else is living of that trade. That person in turn has to maximize the profits, which is why you never buy something at value.

Someone said: “people immune to cultist recruitments don’t have friends”

I get the point, though in reality, the people without any real friends, are the most vulnerable to be dragged into a cult and once they are in - cannot go, because they would then be truly alone again.

> My approach to detecting fraud is to always assume the worst possible reason why someone did something or why something happened.

This goes against Hanlon's razor, though.

Catastrophic thinking is rarely based in good probabilistic thinking. Logically I know that, but my brain latches on to the worst possible rational outcome as the most likely outcome.

I do not try to think in this way. I wish I didn’t.

Human failure and weakness is something we have to accept, the response to it doesn’t need to be entirely negative. Often we can be empathetic in some way or another, which doesn’t exclude tough love.

Also we often underestimate others when thinking too cautiously or fearful. This can often be cured through direct interaction.

Whenever I feel overwhelmed by negative perspective/thinking. I try one of these angles. Sometimes it works, especially if I put effort into engaging with people that are involved.

Hanlon's razor is specifically used by malicious people to conceal their malice, and if you rely on it too heavily you will never detect fraud

Reminds me of the characterization of Harry Markopolos in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Talking to Strangers.

His takeaway is that society is a pretty bleak place when we all lose our “default to trust” mode of operation.

I remember a line from a manga called "Liar's game". The line goes "If you meet someone new, doubt them, question them and then you will understand them better". I think this should be the SOP of when you meet anyone new.

> My approach to detecting fraud is to always assume the worst possible reason why someone did something or why something happened.

> It is a hell of a way to live.

True, but it is the honest way to live. Especially employment/management relationships are all about manipulating, cajoling, and ultimately threatening (by homelessness and starvation) people into doing things they would not otherwise do. Things are not much better in private/social life, except maybe within some families / friend groups or between lovers during the first year or so. Life is so bleak.

The solution is worse than the problem if you live with this attitude.

In addition it is too reductive and doesn't represent the very complex (even enjoyably subtle) interactions that go on between humans who do want something from each other.

Life has many illusions and it is up to you which one you pick. The reality you are enduring is just another illusion you've settled on: except it's a crap one.

Not all relationships are like that. Customers buy my software because it provides some value to them, I sell it because it provides an income. It's a relationship that works to our mutual advantage.

I don't manipulate them, there are no dark patterns on my web site, I don't hold their data hostage or nickel and dime them.

People do things for reasons. That doesn't make life bleak, that just means you should be careful about incentives in your relationships. Shun people who have an incentive to harm you, embrace people who have an incentive to help you and seek out people who think that their best chance at an easy life is making those around them prosper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com