human cognition

How to avoid the cognitive hooks and habits that make us vulnerable to cons

12 days of Christmas, books, cognitive bias, cognitive science, human cognition, psychology, Science, science of cons / Mike M. / January 5, 2024

Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris are the authors of <em> Nobody’s Fool: Why We Get Taken In and What We Can Do About It.</em>” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/fool1-800×531.jpg”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=

There’s rarely time to write about every cool science-y story that comes our way. So this year, we’re once again running a special Twelve Days of Christmas series of posts, highlighting one science story that fell through the cracks in 2023, each day from December 25 through January 5. Today: A conversation with psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris on the key habits of thinking and reasoning that may serve us well most of the time, but can make us vulnerable to being fooled.

It’s one of the most famous experiments in psychology. Back in 1999, Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris conducted an experiment on inattentional blindness. They asked test subjects to watch a short video in which six people—half in white T-shirts, half in black ones—passed basketballs around. The subjects were asked to count the number of passes made by the people in white shirts. Halfway through the video, a person in a gorilla suit walked into the midst of the players and thumped their chest at the camera before strolling off-screen. What surprised the researchers was that fully half the test subjects were so busy counting the number of basketball passes that they never saw the gorilla.

The experiment became a viral sensation—helped by the amusing paper title, “Gorillas in Our Midst“—and snagged Simons and Chabris the 2004 Ig Nobel Psychology Prize. It also became the basis of their bestselling 2010 book, The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Thirteen years later, the two psychologists are back with their latest book, published last July, called Nobody’s Fool: Why We Get Taken In and What We Can Do About It. Simons and Chabris have penned an entertaining examination of key habits of thinking that usually serve us well but also make us vulnerable to cons and scams. They also offer some practical tools based on cognitive science to help us spot deceptions before being taken in.

“People love reading about cons, yet they keep happening,” Simons told Ars. “Why do they keep happening? What is it those cons are tapping into? Why do we not learn from reading about Theranos? We realized there was a set of cognitive principles that seemed to apply across all of the domains, from cheating in sports and chess to cheating in finance and biotech. That became our organizing theme.”

Ars spoke with Simons and Chabris to learn more.

Ars Technica: I was surprised to learn that people still fall for basic scams like the Nigerian Prince scam. It reminds me of Fox Mulder’s poster on The X-Files: “I want to believe.“

Daniel Simons: The Nigerian Prince scam is an interesting one because it’s been around forever. Its original form was in letters. Most people don’t get fooled by that one. The vast majority of people look at it and say, this thing is written in terrible grammar. It’s a mess. And why would anybody believe that they’re the one to recover this vast fortune? So there are some people who fall for it, but it’s a tiny percentage of people. I think it’s still illustrative because that one is obviously too good to be true for most people, but there’s some small subset of people for whom it’s just good enough. It’s just appealing enough to say, “Oh yeah, maybe I could become rich.”

There was a profile in the New Yorker of a clinical psychologist who fell for it. There are people who, for whatever reason, are either desperate or have the idea that they deserve to inherit a lot of money. But there are a lot of scams that are much less obvious than that one, selecting for the people who are most naive about it. I think the key insight there is that we tend to assume that only gullible people fall for this stuff. That is fundamentally wrong. We all fall for this stuff if it’s framed in the right way.

Christopher Chabris: I don’t think they’re necessarily people who always want to believe. I think it really depends on the situation. Some people might want to believe that they can strike it rich in crypto, but they would never fall for a Nigerian email or, for that matter, they might not fall for a traditional Ponzi scheme because they don’t believe in fiat money or the stock market. Going back to the Invisible Gorilla, one thing we noticed was a lot of people would ask us, “What’s the difference between the people who noticed the gorilla and the people who didn’t notice the gorilla?” The answer is, well, some of them happened to notice it and some of them didn’t. It’s not an IQ or personality test. So in the case of the Nigerian email, there might’ve been something going on in that guy’s life at that moment when he got that email that maybe led him to initially accept the premise as true, even though he knew it seemed kind of weird. Then, he got committed to the idea once he started interacting with these people.

So one of our principles is commitment: the idea that if you accept something as true and you don’t question it anymore, then all kinds of bad decisions and bad outcomes can flow from that. So, if you somehow actually get convinced that these guys in Nigeria are real, that can explain the bad decisions you make after that. I think there’s a lot of unpredictableness about it. We all need to understand how these things work. We might think it sounds crazy and we would never fall for it, but we might if it was a different scam at a different time.

How to avoid the cognitive hooks and habits that make us vulnerable to cons Read More »

People can tell what you want to know when you shake wrapped Christmas gifts

On the first day of Christmas —

We can tell if it’s about how many objects are inside, or the shape of those objects.

Jennifer Ouellette – Dec 25, 2023 5: 18 pm UTC

adorable curly red haired toddler in onesie grinning while holding a wrapped christmas present — Enlarge / Shake, shake, shake: this adorable young child would love to guess what he’s getting for Christmas this year.

Johns Hopkins University

There’s rarely time to write about every cool science-y story that comes our way. So this year, we’re once again running a special Twelve Days of Christmas series of posts, highlighting one science story that fell through the cracks in 2023, each day from December 25 through January 5. Today: New research shows it’s incredibly easy for people watching others shake boxes to tell what they’re up to.

Christmas Day is a time for opening presents and finally ending the suspense of what one is receiving this year, but chances are some of us may have already guessed what’s under the wrapping—perhaps by strategically shaking the boxes for clues about its contents. According to a November paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, if someone happened to see you shaking a wrapped gift, they would be able to tell from those motions what you were trying to learn by doing so.

“There are few things more delightful than seeing a child’s eyes light up as they pick up a present and wonder what might be inside,” said co-author Chaz Firestone of Johns Hopkins University, who studies how vision and thought interact. “What our work shows is that your mind is able to track the information they are seeking. Just as they might be able to tell what’s inside the box by shaking it around, you can tell what they are trying to figure out when they shake it.” Christmas presents are “the perfect real-life example of our experiment.”

According to Firestone et al., there is a large scientific literature devoted to studying how people represent and interpret basic actions like walking, reaching, lifting, eating, chasing, or following. It’s a vital ability that helps us anticipate the behavior of others. These are all examples of pragmatic actions with a specific aim, whether it be retrieving an object or moving from one place to the next. Other kinds of actions might be communication-oriented, such as waving, pointing, or assuming an aggressive (or friendly) posture.

The JHU study focused on so-called “epistemic” actions, in which one is seeking information: dipping a toe into the bathtub to see how hot is, for example, testing a door to see if it is locked, or shaking a wrapped box to glean information about what might be inside—like a child trying to guess whether a wrapped Christmas present contains Lego blocks or a teddy bear. “Epistemic actions pervade our lives, and recognizing them does, too,” the authors wrote, citing the ability to tell that a “meandering” campus visitor needs directions, or that someone rifling through shallow drawers is probably looking for keys or similar small objects.

People watched other people shake wrapped boxes for science.

For the first experiment, 16 players were asked to shake opaque boxes. In the first round, they tried to guess the number of objects inside the box (in this case, whether there were five or 15 US nickels). In the second, they tried to guess the shape of a geometric solid inside the box (either a sphere or a cube). All the players scored perfectly in both rounds—an expected outcome, given the simplicity of the task. The videos of those rounds were then placed online and 100 different study participants (“observers”) were asked to watch two videos of the same player and determine which video was from the first “guess the number” round and which was from the second “guess the shape” round. Almost all the observers guessed correctly.

This was intriguing evidence that the observers could indeed infer the goal of the shaking (what the game players were trying to learn) simply by interpreting their motions. But the researchers wondered to what extent the success of the observers relied on the game players’ success at guessing either the number or shape of objects. So they tweaked the box-shaking game to produce more player error. This time, the videotaped players were asked to determine first whether the box held 9, 12, or 16 nickels, and second, whether the box contained a sphere, cylinder, or cube. Only four out of 18 players guessed correctly. But the success rate of 100 new observers who watched the videos remained the same.

Firestone et al. ran three more variations on the basic experiment to refine their results. With each iteration, most of the players performed shaking motions that were different depending on whether the round involved numbers or shapes, and most of the observers (500 in total) successfully inferred what the players were trying to learn by watching those shaking motions. “When you think about all the mental calculations someone must make to understand what someone else is trying to learn, it’s a remarkably complicated process,” said Firestone. “But our findings show it’s something people do easily.”

DOI: PNAS, 2023. 10.1073/pnas.2303162120 (About DOIs).