Manipulative Surgeon

A friend of mine recently went into surgery for shoulder reconstruction. The doctor told him that he did not perform that exact operation in the past, placing the plate where it needs to go.

The doctor proceeded to ask if my friend would prefer to do the surgery privately, which would cost him 1500 USD, or at the hospital which will cost him nothing. Although my friend's insurance covers all the costs, my friend chose the hospital.

What the doctor's intentions were is difficult to guess, but it seems to me (guessing here) he already gets paid pretty well, and that in the hospital he gets more support than he would in a private operating theater--especially due to his lack of experience.

This offer of apparent monetary loss by the doctor in favor of my friend made my friend trust him and believe he is on his side--his friend. Aside to that, my friend speaks with a lot of respect when mentioning the doctor "he is a doctor, after all."

This is not to say that medical doctors do not deserve respect, but rather that my friend was manipulated into complete trust in the doctor, as he is his friend, with his interests in mind and then, he is an authority to be trusted and imitated, despite of his apparent lack of experience.

"He is a cool guy," my friend would say. He probably is, but not as much as my friend seems to think.

I would have thought myself paranoid and put the affair out of my mind until I heard what happened when my friend bought the surgeon a relatively expensive gift following the operation. I think it was a nice thing to do, regardless of the following story.

The surgeon naturally refused the gift at first, calling him crazy in a very "down to earth, from the neighborhood" way. Then he thanked my friend graciously.

My friend was convinced he was completely healed and that the msucle tiisue is completely regenerated. The doctor replied that in the arms, maybe--but not in the shouldr. He asked my friend to put his arms up straight in front of him, put his own arms on top of my friend's and asked him to push up with all the strength he can muster. Then without a problem pushed my friend's hands down.

Now, while my friend's left arm was indeed weaker, and it seems obvious that any arms sitting on top of his have far more power in them to push down, my friend was convinced he must be more careful with his health and that he is not fully recovered.

Visualization at work.

This doctor, while I do believe is a very nice person, is a compliance and persuasion expert.

Pinky.

The Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments

Dr. Robert Cialdini mentioned in his book Influence a couple of psychological experiments conducted earlier in the previous century.

The purpose of these experiments aside, it shows how humans can be pushed, as well as made to do things they don't want to at an extreme level. You can skip to the movies linked to below if you like.

The Milgram experiment concentrated on our adherence to authority.

From Wikipedia--

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

The Standford Prison experiment, from Wikipedia--

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The students who were assigned to be the prisoners were paid $15 a day as an incentive, which is worth about $80 per day in 2008 currency.

http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

These experiments speak for themselves, and you can watch them here:

Stanford Prison experiment (watch in order):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o0Nx31yicY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCsgwcIil7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU6r4mNZ8g0

Milgram experiment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325294940857002700&q=milgram+experiment&ei=BYlYSNSGPJzG2wKw7ZmADw

And revisited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

Pinky.

Social proof can save your life

Back when I read Robert Cialdini's book Influence, he discussed a paper which showed how two drivers who happen to change lanes at the same time can cause many drivers to follow suit. These other drivers think there is a special reason why the first cars changed lanes, such as spotting a driving hazard or seeing the other lane is free. That potentially also endangers others on the road, aside to leading them on.

This of course was given as an example of when social proof goes wrong. A theme through his book is that these "tools of influence", such as social proof, are very useful outside of the potential for their abuse.

In today's busy world, surrounded by clatter and numerous micro decisions, a concept such as social proof can be very useful. "Everyone buys these shoes, they must be better. Or at least well liked."

This of course leads to "If that guy can go through that red light, maybe he knows something I don't and it's not working. Or.. maybe they don't ticket you here. I should follow."

And finally to "Oh! You mean everyone else jumps off the roof? I must do that too!" :)

While driving a few days ago I noticed that the other cars at the intersection were not advancing. I slowed down and a police car buzzed by at incredible speed. I would have seen it a couple of seconds later, but social proof did potentially save my life.

This happened to me before. I would notice people driving strange, or changing lanes. Sometimes I'd follow. Other times I'd deduce it is pointless, silly or dangerous. But ever since this police car incident I watch the cars around me far more closely.

Rather than look at individual cars and the psychology of their drivers to try and figure out when a car is going to cut me, I now also consciously and regularly watch for car group psychology.

As a general rule, when group psychology comes into play on the road, keep your distance.

If I spot nothing wrong other than a snowball effect of people stopping/acting stange, I can always just pass them, leading the way. Letting them eat my dust. :)

Anyone has any idea what that paper on driving psychology and social proof was? Any other pointers?

Pinky.

Here, take a Dollar

Last July I was attending Comic-con along with about 125 thousand other geeks.

Walking to the con I noticed casually dressed individuals who were a little too strict in their posture. More importantly, their faces were completely covered by exagerated makeup, even for clowns, which they now were.

More over, they were holding Dollar bills in their hands.

First time around the guy tried to hand me a flier. He tried to convince me to come to a meeting, to listen. Then when I refused he tried to hand me a Dollar bill.

The second encounter I actually went to the guy and asked who they were, he handed me the flier which had Uncle Sam in clown make up. Join the army they said? :)

This guy, however, started by trying to hand me the Dollar bill to begin with.

Back then it seemed rather pathetic to me that they would try to recruit people in that manner. What is that Dollar bill supposed to be for? Attracting attention? Helping the poor? Getting a taxi ride? Come on!

Yesterday I recounted the story with some friends, only now I realized that while the above may be true, what they did was using the compliance tool called reciprocation. As they hand people Dollar bills, people who take them would feel obilgated to return the favor by at least showing up to their recruitment meeting, or listening to their pitch.

Me? Anyone hands me free money I wouldn't touch it and run in the other direction.

Pinky.

Hobgoblins of the mind: Social proof and commitments in email

Yesterday I recieved a request by some whats-their-name publication to write a 700 words column for them. They introduced a time constraint to make the request seem more important (but not too urgent, to avoid seeming desperate).

Being with a full schedule, I cordially responded and asked for a time-frame, as I don't necessarily have the time to commit. They responded with two weeks, a good time frame although from past experience two weeks usually means six to eight available (time) for the editors.

Payment was not mentioned, so this is a pro-bono thang. I never heard of them before so wasn't in much of a hurry to commit time I don't have out of my "lazy time" allocation.

They mentioned others who write for them on the subject, and that they want to publish these, now blogs, together. I looked at the names and recognized a couple. One worked for the Whitehouse and the other for a known entity.

I wasn't too impressed, but that bit is what tipped the scale and caused me to say yes. Once I said yes I am committed.. You know how silly humans are about holding up to their commitments and staying consistent? I am worse. Usually that is a good thing, but it is also a compliance tool to get a yes out of people.

The names at the footer of the email message made me accept the publication as worthy, social proof 101.

I am committed. Or am I?

Emailing the guy back I luckily asked for the subjects on which these others are writing on, so we can avoid over-lap and "get some ideas". I haven't heard back yet.

I may have been had, but at least I wasn't automatic in my response. These names writing there means little to me. I have something I am unsure on where to publish and like to help smaller publications, so their what's their name publication is as good as any--if they show me they are serious rather than avoid the subject of subjects.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Suggested reading is once again Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

Pinky.

Update:
They got back to me, two weeks later. They asked for when I will be able to submit my text.

I asked them about my question.. what these other authors are writing about, so I can avoid duplication and get ideas.

Their reply was that it was confidential, and that it is their job as editors to avoid such problems.

Logical flaws aside, and my willingness to write for a small publication ignored... If I write for these people they will just use my name when talking to others, to get them to write for them. Heck, they probably did already.

Ini mini miny moe

Eating pizza and waiting for my flight to Europe, I observed a European family at a nearby table. The mother, grandmother and three small children were playing a repetitive “word and clap” game which triggered a childhood memory of a similar game, although in a different language.

From Yahoo! answers:
“Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, which can be spelled a number of ways, is a children's counting rhyme, used to select "it" for games and similar purposes. The rhyme has been around in various forms since the 1850s or earlier, and is common today in many countries. Since many similar counting rhymes existed earlier, it is difficult to ascertain its exact origin.”

Sitting in a circle, they each put their hands on top of the hands of the people to their right and left, palm up.

The song was simplistic, and with every word or syllable they rhymed one would “tag” the next person in line by clapping their own left hand with their left (momentarily removed from on top of the hand of the person to their right).

Whoever started the tagging was also the last to be tagged. The rhyme is known by heart by everyone at the circle, and yet, the kids were occasionally caught off-guard.

The song being very rhythmical and in sync with the clapping creates a pattern which is hard to break, programming the players to keep clapping and singing rather than escape the final “winning” tag.

Watching the children fall for this immediately after reading Robert Cialdini's book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion made me realize just how much humans are creatures of habit, and of how the same type of behaviour can be observed with adults playing the game of life.

Pinky.