"Source Bias" and Confidence Men

Our friend Frank Kneeland originally posted this in our Las Vegas Forum and I think it needs to have its own thread for discussion. It is something that could help everyone-- and not just people who go to casinos. It can also help consumers and shoppers and investors, because all of us have some sort of "source bias" that guides our decisions.

Criminals take advantage of it. The advertising business depends on it. Here is Frank's original post:

I'd like to discuss Source Bias. Are you all aware of the common bias people have for and against people they like and don't like?

And that we tend to be more accepting of information from sources with which we have had previous positive results?

It is a common bias used by confidence men to gain trust and the scam people. I'd like to know if you've all heard of it.

Comments?

And here was my original response to Frank on the Las Vegas Forum:

Frank, your source bias idea is commonly used by con men. I sent you a private message about putting this on our Open Forum where I would be happy to discuss it. You probably know about the relativity this has to financial cons including Ponzi schemes, but it also applies to sports betting cons.

If we had a thread on sports betting I could post it there. (I don't know much about sports betting, but I do know about some of the cons in sports betting.)

Edited to add: Oh what the heck, you have it here and you mentioned scams, and its used in sports betting so here it goes:

A con man gets a list of 1,000 sports betters, and on week one of a sports season he picks a game. Half of the list is told Team A will win, and the other half of the list is told Team B will win. He asks for no money... it's a sample of his "skill."

Week#2 The winners from week #1 are divided into two groups... half get Team A and half are told to bet on Team B in the second week's game. Again no money is requested... it's another example of his skill.

And this continues until the con man has a small group of gamblers who may be convinced that the tipster "can't be wrong" because they got the winning picks.

And so the tipster says to his small group of winners... "send me ten grand and let me make the bet on this XXXX game. I know who will win. You've seen my record."

When talking about source bias I like to bring up Sir Isaac Newton. Here was a guy that people really hated. It was only on his death bed that he gained any real supporters. The interesting thing about him is he was wrong, very wrong about far more than he was right. After his death certain people applied creative editing to his history and suppressed his work on alchemy, heretical diatribes against the church of England, and things like his collection of Nun Torture accounts. Here's one of the greatest minds of all time and yet 80% of what was in his head was superstitious nonsense that he was absolutely convinced was true. It was a 100 years later when his lost notes were uncovered that the true Newton was revealed.

Here's the point: If Newton could be wrong about so much, then anyone regardless of IQ or knowledge could be wrong about things as well. But that isn't how most humans rate the veracity of new information. If it comes from someone with a track record, someone they like, someone with a lot of money, or someone well respected; it is given far more credence than if it had come from a street bum.

There is also a strong negative bias to reject information from anyone we dislike.

The reality is that people we like and people we hate are just as likely to be wrong or right on general topics.

~FK

For reference material I recommend Newton--The Dark Heretic

This is all very interesting Frank and thanks for bringing this up. I can tell you first hand that what you write and the entire concept you bring up is true-- and works. And here is my personal encounter with source bias.

As everyone knows I got into a very heated argument on another Internet discussion board because I supported a controversial position and what I did was suggest that there was some merit in a certain type of video poker strategy. (Need I say more about this strategy or position? I think not.)

And as soon as I started to show support for that controversial strategy, it appeared that almost everything else that I wrote in that discussion forum was deemed wrong.

Well, when I just couldn't get my point across I used a different screen name to express my same thoughts. And amazingly, while my original comments were blasted when made under my original screen name, when similar comments were made using the different screen name they were met with respect.

And this is really human nature at work. It is why honored and respected people are hired to be the spokesman for a company or a cause, and controversial people and those with bad reputations are not.

If a company someday finds a cure for cancer, O. J. Simpson will never be hired as its spokesman because the public could never accept O. J. Simpson for representing anything -- even for a company that has found a cure for cancer. O. J. Simpson's appearance as the spokesman for a company that has found a cure for cancer would probably bring the attention on O. J. and not on the cure for cancer. And O. J.'s lack of credibility in the eyes of the public could destroy the credibility of a company that just found a cure for cancer.

The spokesman becomes a very important part of your message whether it is a commercial message, or religious message, or political message. Even in Hollywood, casting directors consider the reputations of actors and the past roles of actors in making their decisions. And so, it would be very hard for Lindsey Lohan to land a role as a Nun or as Joan of Arc.

And now with the Internet there is another kind of source bias used by search engines to rank the importance or credibility of websites. Some websites are ranked higher than others in search results by the number of links to that site. One search engines gives high ranks to sites that have links to it from dot-edu websites. This is an Internet application of source bias.

Very intelligently stated!

I couldn't agree more.

What's the correlation between intelligence and speaking intelligently? I suppose one could articulate stupidity well or not articulate intelligent thought well.

But, to the topic, I'd like to think I consume a product or service based on its merit to me, not as a result of an endorsement or pitchman.

I seem to recall a TV commercial or two where the message was (I think) completely irrelevant to the product, as if the company was saying, "We are not going to try to hard sell you". It was an ad or two, short-lived I think, where the only reference to what the ad might have been for was simply a company name at the very end.

Sort of source bias without the source? Maybe thinking we're all tired of the conventional, and given a choice we'll buy their product over an advertisingly obnoxious competitor?

Don't know, but I've always heard that when some businesses within specific sectors advertise, their sales are down. Some companies simply have advertising budgets regardless.

Now to keep the conversation going:

1. What single informational source do we think would be the one we are most likely to be positively biased towards???

2. And (If you got the answer to #1) what types of people do we think would be less susceptible to this type of bias, high IQ or low IQ???

~FK

Frank, the most trusted informational source of my lifetime was my Father, may he rest in peace. My IQ didn't matter and it's high up there, contrary to what others think or what I've done with it. (LOL)

I think most consumers trust family members above all which is why advertisements and commercials usually feature actors which appear to be "family" including wise uncles and aunts and characters that will remind you of family including children. Next on the list of trust are "doctors."

You have to be careful using a Hollywood Star as a spokesman, because you never know what they will be caught doing next. (LOL)

You have missed one, and it's the one person each of us are most inherently biased towards. And of course it is different for everyone.

Nuff clues?

Spouse? Not with today's divorce rates. (LOL) And it wouldn't surprise me if most guys talk to their buds first, and if most gals talk to their girlfriends first. Nah. You can't be talking about spouses.

Nope, not spouses.

And it's someone hermits and socialites have in equal quantity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

Nope, not spouses.

And it's someone hermits and socialites have in equal quantity.

---

I suppose you're talking about one's self, and if that's the answer to #1, I'll think about Part II.

Bingo. It's pretty well accepted that we are biased towards our own opinions.

Now here's the weird part. Since the ratio of personal opinions to right and wrong opinions is a 1 to 1 correlation, any particular thought is no more likely than any other to be correct as a result of it being ours. That having been said, everyone favors their own opinions right or wrong. Wow heavy mind bender!

Now let's tackle consensus bias. Since beliefs that are pleasant are more likely to be accepted, would the argument that most people believe a certain way be more likely to make that belief true or false?

I think I could get lost in terms like "right and wrong opinions", and beliefs either based in fact or opinion. To remain practical and pragmatic here, I'll say that group beliefs are as likely to be true as false. Is this about opinions being based in fact or not, or beliefs being based on fact or opinion?

We all know that illusions are real. I think you've addressed that somewhere before perhaps. I'm pretty sure I believe in absolute truth as well and I'm pretty confidant things are not always the way they seem.

Is this part of the Singer System analysis, lol.

Actually, you're taking me back to David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", Phil 101, Ray Martin, Univ of MD.........Tempe, AZ rooftops and all night walks through the Sonoran Desert, and other things associated with those times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

I think I could get lost in terms like "right and wrong opinions", and beliefs either based in fact or opinion. To remain practical and pragmatic here, I'll say that group beliefs are as likely to be true as false. Is this about opinions being based in fact or not, or beliefs being based on fact or opinion?

We all know that illusions are real. I think you've addressed that somewhere before perhaps. I'm pretty sure I believe in absolute truth as well and I'm pretty confidant things are not always the way they seem.

Is this part of the Singer System analysis, lol.

---

Well said. I like your contributions. I was just making tea and thinking that we needed a definition of "right and wrong" and you took the words out of my mouth.

Would anyone have an objection to defining "right" as provable using the scientific method?

This means based on testable quantities using control groups, random sampling, duplicate-able results, etc...

As far as I know the disturbing reality is that the most popular beliefs tend to be the least provable.

Therefore, the "most people" argument tends to refute rather than support "most arguments"-- there are exceptions.

In the end the deciding factor is often whether or not the truth is a happy truth.

No, I was not talking about the Singer system at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

I suppose you're talking about one's self, and if that's the answer to #1, I'll think about Part II.

---

The answer to #2 is people of low IQ and low self esteem are far less likely to have self biases as they are more willing to accept being wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

Well said. I like your contributions. I was just making tea and thinking that we needed a definition of "right and wrong" and you took the words out of my mouth.

Would anyone have an objection to defining "right" as provable using the scientific method?

This means based on testable quantities using control groups, random sampling, duplicate-able results, etc...

As far as I know the disturbing reality is that the most popular beliefs tend to be the least provable.

Therefore, the "most people" argument tends to refute rather than support "most arguments"-- there are exceptions.

In the end the deciding factor is often whether or not the truth is a happy truth.

No, I was not talking about the Singer system at this time.

---

The objection to defining "right" as provable using the scientific method is simply that scientific truths constantly evolve, or perhaps more accurately they are not always arrived at in one fell swoop. Maybe I'm talking about something else as by definition a scientific truth would be constant, I suppose. I don't think in every case absolute truth is proveable. It's just that simple or not. All you have to do is pick up a textbook. It seems like what's "accepted" can change. Once again, it's goes back to order vs disorder. It may not be practical to toss out the scientific method. It's a way to move ahead even if it doesn't capture the truth right away, if ever.

Does anyone partially understand that view? Because I don't think science alone is capable of arriving at absolute truth, maybe a practical truth, until something else comes along.

As far as the answer to #2 you gave, I would think it would be the opposite because I wouldn't think they would consider the possibility of being wrong as much as a "smarter" person who knows they don't know everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

The objection to defining "right" as provable using the scientific method is simply that scientific truths constantly evolve. I don't think in every case absolute truth is proveable. It's just that simple or not. All you have to do is pick up a textbook. It seems like what's "accepted" can change. Once again, it's goes back to order vs disorder. It may not be practical to toss out the scientific method. It's a way to move ahead even if it doesn't capture the truth right away, if ever.

Does anyone partially understand that view? Because I don't think science alone is capable of arriving at absolute truth, maybe a practical truth, until something else comes along.

As far as the answer to #2 you gave, I would think it would be the opposite because I wouldn't think they would consider the possibility of being wrong as much as a "smarter" person who knows they don't know everything.

---

You are correct that absolute truth is difficult to prove. Perhaps we'd have an easier time defining its opposite.

As far as lower IQ vs higher IQ and self bias the issue is one of self esteem. The correlation is not absolute.

Geez, Frank..............I don't have time to edit before your reply. Just kidding...........but I do believe in the "edit" feature.

This has been fun, and had the real world not reared its ugly head, I'd probably still be pondering like subjects all day while circling a saguaro for shade and be able to present a more thorough, challenging, yet succinct view. Perhaps.

Take care..................

Interesting discussion there, guys. I am intrigued by Frank's comment:

As far as I know the disturbing reality is that the most popular beliefs tend to be the least provable.

When it comes to popular beliefs that can't be proved perhaps the biggest is that of "life after death" and I remember when I worked at CBS News back in the 1970s we had a discussion about that in the newsroom during an overnight "lull" (yes there were some slow nights in the news biz). And Reid Collins who at the time was the primary morning radio anchor (he later went to CNN) said something I will never forget. He said: "proof positive of life after death would be the greatest news story of all time."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

Bingo. It's pretty well accepted that we are biased towards our own opinions.

Now here's the weird part. Since the ratio of personal opinions to right and wrong opinions is a 1 to 1 correlation, any particular thought is no more likely than any other to be correct as a result of it being ours. That having been said, everyone favors their own opinions right or wrong. Wow heavy mind bender!

Now let's tackle consensus bias. Since beliefs that are pleasant are more likely to be accepted, would the argument that most people believe a certain way be more likely to make that belief true or false?

---

You gave me a sleepless night with this one, Frank. Unless you have a split personality YOU cannot be your own "information source."

Let's look at your original two-part question:

Now to keep the conversation going:

1. What single informational source do we think would be the one we are most likely to be positively biased towards???

2. And (If you got the answer to #1) what types of people do we think would be less susceptible to this type of bias, high IQ or low IQ???

~FK

An informational source must be an outside influence. It cannot be your own imagination, unless of course you are Eve listening to one of your many other personalities who are trying to tell you how to act or what to believe. An informational source must be someone else or something else.

Alan, just tuned in here but want to give you my thoughts on what you wrote about " An informational source must be an outside influence".

Imagine no TV, radio, media of any type, no other people......................Or let's say you wake up to a rainstorm..............no one has to tell you it's raining. It's your own senses that hopefully can do that for you. I think that's the thought behind Frank's answer to #1.

Let's say you're a pedestrian at a traffic signal and for some reason everyone walks at the wrong time. Without your own eyes and ears, you might also join them. But you don't because of your own info.

Now this actually takes me a little off subject, but one of my interests is dementia. Dementia patients are extremely vulnerable people who have lost some of their most important information source(s). Their own.

Alan, may I add I completely "get" and respect your POV and reasoning. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You gave me a sleepless night with this one, Frank. Unless you have a split personality YOU cannot be your own "information source."

Let's look at your original two-part question:

Now to keep the conversation going:

1. What single informational source do we think would be the one we are most likely to be positively biased towards???

2. And (If you got the answer to #1) what types of people do we think would be less susceptible to this type of bias, high IQ or low IQ???

~FK

An informational source must be an outside influence. It cannot be your own imagination, unless of course you are Eve listening to one of your many other personalities who are trying to tell you how to act or what to believe. An informational source must be someone else or something else.

---

It's an interesting distinction but not one I make. You could replace the word "information" with "counsel" or "belief" or "opinion". Anyway, if you read something, it is impossible to do so without interpreting it and putting your own spin on it. So even information that begins from without is still coming from within. According to Michael Shermer the research says that beliefs come first, and information second. So most beliefs are in fact internal, even if we then sort through random information to only pick out the parts that support our desires.

You might think an idea came from someone or somewhere else, but you aren't factoring in the source selection process which is largely internal.

People do have original thoughts as well, and for any of these, calling yourself the source seems perfectly reasonable. I doubt if Newton credits anyone else for the Laws of Motion.

You are thinking too much like a reporter. For normal non-media folks, calling yourself an information source is as normal as picking a restaurant to eat at. It is not imperative to me that someone else told me it was good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Interesting discussion there, guys. I am intrigued by Frank's comment:

As far as I know the disturbing reality is that the most popular beliefs tend to be the least provable.

When it comes to popular beliefs that can't be proved perhaps the biggest is that of "life after death" and I remember when I worked at CBS News back in the 1970s we had a discussion about that in the newsroom during an overnight "lull" (yes there were some slow nights in the news biz). And Reid Collins who at the time was the primary morning radio anchor (he later went to CNN) said something I will never forget. He said: "proof positive of life after death would be the greatest news story of all time."

---

Well now you've done it. I think we better not try to challenge that particular belief. I would like to tell a story.

At my mothers funeral the split between atheists and believers was about 50/50. Almost without fail the non-believers were crying their eyes out and the believers were smiling, happy that she had, "gone to a better place". Never in my life had I seen such dichotomy and the obvious benefit that the believers were getting from "knowing" that there was an afterlife.

Several days later I watched a BBC series called The Human Sexes by Desmond Morris, where he detailed how most, if not all religions grew out of funerary practices (which themselves developed to lessen the sting of death). What can I say, for me the penny dropped. We must always be most careful of beliefs that make us feel better.

I am not trying to challenge a belief in the the after life. It is worth noting that whatever your beliefs on the subject, you'll find little consensus across distance and time, yet all cultures have it to some degree.

Frank, here's my belief: we are born into this world with a blank slate. And we learn what is good and what is bad. Some of what we learn comes from others who tell us. Some of what we learn comes from outside natural forces such as heat and cold and pain and taste and touch and smell. I hope that somehow fits in with the point you're making.

Let's add a little more to the discussion. If the rightest and wrongness of beliefs was purely dependent on the facts then we would not expect to find a correlation with belief and neurochemistry, but we do. There is a very strong correlation between dopamine levels, belief and skepticism. Paternity (seeing patterns in meaningless noise) can even be triggered in skeptics by increasing their dopamine levels with drugs like L-Dopa.

Would you be inclined to think a belief was true, if it is known that a psychoactive drug was more prevalent in all the people that subscribed to it?

~FK

I don't know Frank, but the rights of a single individual trump those of the masses every time in a democratic republic as ours, would you not agree?

Or would you argue that the same rights that protect the masses also protect the individual?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

I don't know Frank, but the rights of a single individual trump those of the masses every time in a democratic republic as ours, would you not agree?

Or would you argue that the same rights that protect the masses also protect the individual?

---

Well gosh Lucky, I've never thought about it. I know next to nothing about politics. I couldn't even tell you what the difference was between a Republican and a Democrat. They're just labels without meaning to me.

I best not comment outside my areas of study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

the rights of a single individual trump those of the masses every time in a democratic republic as ours, would you not agree?

---

I strongly disagree with this statement. Sure, the rights of an individual to free speech are protected-- and we know that-- but with limitations. An individual has no right to yell out "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. And an individual in this country does not have the right to call for the violent overthrow of the US Government.

I'm sorry. It was brought to my attention that this thread was "locked." This was an error. We fixed it and the thread is open again. I don't know how this happened. Please, if anything like this happens please send a personal message to me. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

Let's add a little more to the discussion. If the rightest and wrongness of beliefs was purely dependent on the facts then we would not expect to find a correlation with belief and neurochemistry, but we do. There is a very strong correlation between dopamine levels, belief and skepticism. Paternity (seeing patterns in meaningless noise) can even be triggered in skeptics by increasing their dopamine levels with drugs like L-Dopa.

Would you be inclined to think a belief was true, if it is known that a psychoactive drug was more prevalent in all the people that subscribed to it?

~FK

---

I don't really look at the person giving the opinion or belief as much as I weigh the merits of the belief. If you were to give me a list of 10 beliefs in column A, and a list of 10 people with those beliefs in column B, unless I'm missing the point, who said what is less important than what was said. I'm not sure I'd find column B necessary.

I wouldn't discount or endorse a belief based on a psychoactive substance shared by those of the belief. Have I missed the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

I don't really look at the person giving the opinion or belief as much as I weigh the merits of the belief. If you were to give me a list of 10 beliefs in column A, and a list of 10 people with those beliefs in column B, unless I'm missing the point, who said what is less important than what was said. I'm not sure I'd find column B necessary.

I wouldn't discount or endorse a belief based on a psychoactive substance shared by those of the belief. Have I missed the point?

---

No you have not missed the point. Here's the scary thing, there is a direct correlation between certain beliefs and elevated levels of dopamine. Which for me puts those beliefs in a very dubious category.

High dopamine levels = Tendency to make type I errors
Low dopamine levels = Tendency to make type II errors

~FK

While I'm confident I've proven your point that self is the primary source bias, why do your posts lead to more questions?

What dopamine levels lead to typing errors?

Off topic: Rob, I hope your RV'ing is going well!

Life is stressful. How about some respectful fun with some "on topic" mixed in for good measure?

Frank, what is a Type I error vs a Type II error?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

1. While I'm confident I've proven your point that self is the primary source bias, why do your posts lead to more questions?

2. What dopamine levels lead to typing errors?

3. Off topic: Rob, I hope your RV'ing is going well!

4. Life is stressful. How about some respectful fun with some "on topic" mixed in for good measure?

5. Frank, what is a Type I error vs a Type II error?

---

1. There are always more questions. I prefer to answer the ones no one is asking.
2. Low, as it is important in muscle control.
4. What is this "fun" thing of which you speak?
5. Sorry I covered that earlier in the another thread:...

Type I error = Seeing patterns that are not there.
Type II error = Missing patterns that are there.

I wrote about it in another post that started with: You are walking in a field and hear a noise in the grass, you think it is a dangerous predator. It is only the wind, you have made a type I error.

~FK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

1. There are always more questions. I prefer to answer the ones no one is asking.
2. Low, as it is important in muscle control.
4. What is this "fun" thing of which you speak?
5. Sorry I covered that earlier in the another thread:...

Type I error = Seeing patterns that are not there.
Type II error = Missing patterns that are there.

I wrote about it in another post that started with: You are walking in a field and hear a noise in the grass, you think it is a dangerous predator. It is only the wind, you have made a type I error.

~FK

---

Isn't an answer to a question no one has asked anything but an answer. Maybe a statement, another question........until the question has been asked. What if the question is never asked? I don't think it qualifies as an answer in that case. From a practical point of view, it's too risky.

Fun would be saying, "Frank, what do you think will happen Dec. 21, 2012?" Fun is also extremely subjective. I used the wrong word.

I remember the "noise in the grass".......................thanks for the reminder.

What about point #3 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis

Isn't an answer to a question no one has asked anything but an answer. Maybe a statement, another question........until the question has been asked. What if the question is never asked? I don't think it qualifies as an answer in that case. From a practical point of view, it's too risky.

Fun would be saying, "Frank, what do you think will happen Dec. 21, 2012?" Fun is also extremely subjective. I used the wrong word.

I remember the "noise in the grass".......................thanks for the reminder.

What about point #3 ?

---

I will not beg the question or answer your question with a question but instead I will answer that I would like to get people to question the answers to the questions the thought they had the answers to without question.

I heard Dec 21st had been canceled due to lack of interest.

Point #3 was not for me.