How is it that this post has 332 Likes, 51 Restacks, but not a single comment? It is Dec. 29 and this post was written on Dec 14. I see that this post is very clean. Prof. Huemer is spelling out how not to be a sucker. He is taking “obvious” scams and telling us the Pattern in these scams. This seems novel and very helpful, so thank you Prof. Huemer.
Maybe people were too busy to comment over the holiday?
Maybe subscribers to Fake Nous are quiet types?
Perhaps this post taps into a vulnerability in humans — such as an aversion to being associated with being a sucker? Hence, commenting would be beneath them, perhaps causing a bit of shame.
Full disclosure, I didn’t read this post until Arnold Kling linked to it. I was “too good for it” or “too busy” to even read it when I encountered it on my own. So I’m not blaming past readers. I’m “guilty” too.
What is it about this post? What is it about us?
Questions we might ask. How effective is this post in preventing people from becoming suckers? One could conduct the following experiment. Teach the Pattern to a random population of subjects and then follow them through life occasionally presenting them with a “new scam” that follows the same Pattern. Do they fall for the scam? My guess is yes, many people get fooled by the “new” scams even if they have the same Pattern. Why is this?
Then conduct similar experiments in which a random population of subject is taught and reminded of the Pattern annually? Do they fall for the “new” scams then?
How many people fall for such “new” scams if reminded of the Pattern monthly, weekly, daily?
What I would expect to see is that people especially the “gullible types” would need twice yearly, monthly and maybe weekly reminding in order not to fall for the “new” scams.
Follow-up questions. Are people more vulnerable to certain types of scams? Religious people to religious scams; honest people to “honest” scams; conspiracy prone people to “conspiracy” scams; right political people to right political scams; etc.
Longer term experiment: would be to actually teach critical thinking, logic, and history in elementary school of the “type” that would minimize the production of suckers. What type would this be?
How is it that this post has 332 Likes, 51 Restacks, but not a single comment? It is Dec. 29 and this post was written on Dec 14. I see that this post is very clean. Prof. Huemer is spelling out how not to be a sucker. He is taking “obvious” scams and telling us the Pattern in these scams. This seems novel and very helpful, so thank you Prof. Huemer.
Maybe people were too busy to comment over the holiday?
Maybe subscribers to Fake Nous are quiet types?
Perhaps this post taps into a vulnerability in humans — such as an aversion to being associated with being a sucker? Hence, commenting would be beneath them, perhaps causing a bit of shame.
Full disclosure, I didn’t read this post until Arnold Kling linked to it. I was “too good for it” or “too busy” to even read it when I encountered it on my own. So I’m not blaming past readers. I’m “guilty” too.
What is it about this post? What is it about us?
Questions we might ask. How effective is this post in preventing people from becoming suckers? One could conduct the following experiment. Teach the Pattern to a random population of subjects and then follow them through life occasionally presenting them with a “new scam” that follows the same Pattern. Do they fall for the scam? My guess is yes, many people get fooled by the “new” scams even if they have the same Pattern. Why is this?
Then conduct similar experiments in which a random population of subject is taught and reminded of the Pattern annually? Do they fall for the “new” scams then?
How many people fall for such “new” scams if reminded of the Pattern monthly, weekly, daily?
What I would expect to see is that people especially the “gullible types” would need twice yearly, monthly and maybe weekly reminding in order not to fall for the “new” scams.
Follow-up questions. Are people more vulnerable to certain types of scams? Religious people to religious scams; honest people to “honest” scams; conspiracy prone people to “conspiracy” scams; right political people to right political scams; etc.
Longer term experiment: would be to actually teach critical thinking, logic, and history in elementary school of the “type” that would minimize the production of suckers. What type would this be?