"Source Bias" and Confidence Men

[Alan Mendelson]

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?

[Alan Mendelson]

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."

[Frank Kneeland]

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

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

[Frank Kneeland]

Very intelligently stated!

I couldn't agree more.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

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.

[Frank Kneeland]

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

[Alan Mendelson]

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)

[Frank Kneeland]

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?

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

[Frank Kneeland]

Nope, not spouses.

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

[Lucky(St)Louis]

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.

[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?

[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.

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.

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

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.

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

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..................

[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."