How con artists trick your mind
bbc.com
bbc.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practice
Edit: It's referenced in the article but that link points to Amazon.
> ...making use of physically attractive accomplices, for instance. They can use our deepest desires to blind our reasoning ...
Sounds like standard sales and marketing.
I have spent a lot of my life in sales. The lying manipulating salesman gets all the attention, the honest guy makes all the money. Why? Customers will figure out if they were lied to, and not buy from that person again. The honest salesperson gets repeat business, and he gets word-of-mouth, and the time to close gets much shorter with repeat customers.
Think of your own life. Do you return to the scammy guy? Probably not. Do you have favorite places to spend money? Those places are staffed with the honest people. You probably go back over and over, spending money for years. I have purchased a new car a dozen times. The last three from Joe at Precision Toyota because he treats me well and he gives me great pricing in 5 minutes with no haggling. So Joe has got about $$100,000 in sales out of me.
I understand the anger people have about manipulative salespeople. I get angry when I see it too, but mostly because I can see bad technique the way most of the readers on HN see bad code. There are plenty of honest salespeople. You just think of them as "My friend at the store, I always get it from him" and that's ok. Your friend at the store is using his honest nature to build a business.
All really good salesmen temporarily believe
whatever bullshit they are selling at the time.
It's kind of like method acting.There is currently a bit of a debate in Canada as to whether we should be joining the US and its allies in fighting the Islamic State, and all three of these are being heavily deployed by those in favour:
1) we must act now! 2) experts agree! 3) every decent person agrees IS must be stopped!
There hasn't been any deployment of physically attractive accomplices, although I guess that's pretty much what the Liberal's use of Justin Trudeau in opposition amounts to.
The difficulty is that none of these are actual arguments in favour of the proposed strategy. I am generally opposed to military intervention--because it rarely works and it kills people and costs enormous amounts of money and rarely works--but can see there may be a case to be made here. Unfortunately, by using what are widely recognized as scammer's tactics, the government has alienated itself from any evidence-based support (this would not be a first, for this government nor any of its predecessors.)
It would be lovely to see the actual merits of the mission debated, but it is clear that both the opposition and the government are interested only in deploying scammer's tactics in support of their favoured side.
And now I'm sounding uncomfortably similar to conspiracy theorists ...
Rather than focusing on emotional issues (which of course is what we are supposed to be focusing on), view the economics of the situation, and decide who gains from certain actions on the part of the US military.
I'm not saying ISIS isn't bad. But they don't benefit from antagonizing the west into bombing the bejeus out of Iraq and Syria, then re-occupying the Mideast with troops. So who would benefit from that?
Most likely, there's your terrorists in my opinion. They probably wear suits and stay in very nice hotels.
"Most of your neighbours have already signed up," okay... and?
"It's a limited time offer, so we need to know by the end of the week at the latest."
"This website is made by BBC Worldwide. BBC Worldwide is a commercial company that is owned by the BBC (and just the BBC.) No money from the licence fee was used to create this website. Instead this website is supported by advertising outside the UK. The profits we make from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes"
"The seven persuasion principles might be as old as the hills, but Stajano says they are often ignored by security experts, who are as likely to blame security breaches on the people using their systems as they are to blame the scammers. 'Too many security professionals think: users are such a pain – my system would be super-secure if only users behaved in the proper way,' he says. He is trying to persuade experts that they need to make security systems that work in harmony with – not despite - the way we behave."
We have to deal with human nature as it is, not as we wish it to be, if we are to make progress in computer and Internet security.
Yes, exactly. Security professionals should be forced to write this out in longhand about 100 times every week, just so they don't forget.
I know many people who have used computers for 20 or 30 years, but who are still "clueless" in my "computer nerd" opinion. That's because normal users just want to use computers as a tool to solve problems they're interested in. Normal people are interested in the destination, computer nerds are interested in the journey.
Sounds like how most people get suckered by politicians, over and over again.
> ...the authority principle, for example, is actually very helpful for surviving peacefully in human society
Is it really? But isn't unquestioning obedience to authority the key ingredient to war, corruption and genocide? Maybe trust in authority is necessary in children but adults need to accept the responsibility to think for themselves.
Come on.
Their customer service seemed genuinely surprised when I slammed the sales process in my post-sales feedback.