Many adults today, more so the hip, younger crowd, those au fait with the latest technology and fashion trends, tend to credit themselves as being ‘street smart’ (or in local parlance, having ‘road sense’) and unlikely to be scammed by any two-bit hustler. They don’t consider themselves among those vulnerable members of society deemed as gullible. Unfortunately, gullibility is a fundamental characteristic of humans, and whether we are prepared to accept it or not, we are all susceptible to being conned at some point in our lives; it could be in a financial transaction, a matter of the heart, or a career choice. A classical everyday example of society’s gullibility is our acceptance of the perception created by astute marketing and advertising that the acquisition of certain brands will fulfil our need for social status and identity. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The simple essence of a con is that the person being manipulated by the confidence trickster is under the impression that he/she will be the beneficiary of some product, property, or service. The scam artist, more often than not, has neither the ability nor means to fulfil what is advertised, and instead focuses on the potential victim’s vulnerabilities, which, quite often, are desperate hopes and ambitions.
When the economic environment started getting rough here in the mid-1970s, a suave, always immaculately dressed (standard operating procedure for most swindlers) and impeccably groomed businessman opened an overseas placement services agency in a flashy edifice, replete with huge lighted signage, on the lower East Bank. Purporting to be a doctor, the walls of his opulent office were adorned with an array of certificates from foreign universities, he claimed to be able to facilitate placements at universities in North America, visas, jobs and work permits. He was eventually charged with fraud but the actual number of gullible people swindled was never confirmed as no doubt several victims would have been too ashamed to come forward.
Psychologists and researchers have been delving deeply into interpreting the subject of human credulity and the role of gullibility in contemporary public affairs, exploring the causes, functions, and, most importantly, the consequences, which, at times, can be catastrophic to say the least. The reality is human judgments and decisions can be distorted or undermined by social and cultural aspects, the role of cognitive processes, and the influences of emotion and motivation. In today’s age of unlimited and unfiltered information, where various formats such as, ‘fake news’, conspiracy theories and fraudulent scientific data, are constantly being hurled at an infobesity society via social media on several platforms, the key role of the internet, and its telecommunication precursor, television, cannot be overstated.
Several factors can contribute to making us gullible depending on the circumstances, and leading us to believe improbable propositions. These components include (but are by no means limited to) an unconditional respect for authority dovetailed with a willingness to confirm, overconfidence of our expertise or knowledge in a specific subject area, and level of trust of the source. In addition, there is the tendency to align with traditional or cultural (such as ethnic or religious group) norms, impulsive selections, agreeing with everyone because it seems to be a good idea (simplification of Group Think), personal biases, flattery and mood – positive or negative at moment of decision making.
Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains that gullibility occurs because we have evolved to process information using two fundamentally different systems. In the first system, our thinking mind set is automatic, intuitive, fast, uncritical and promotes the acceptance of anecdotal and personal information as true. In the second instance, our thinking approach is slow, analytical,and rational, and leads to thorough evaluation of incoming information. The former strategy was applicable in our ancestral environment where trust was based on life-long relationships, but is no longer in today’s anonymous online world. Kahneman states that while all humans use both intuitive and analytical methods, the latter system, the scientific approach, is the best available antidote to gullibility.
Salman Rushdie, whilst researching his fourteenth novel, Quichotte (2019), binged watched television shows. Every conceivable production: soap operas, movies, news, series, cooking, documentaries, televangelists, game shows, sports, comedy, reality television; you name it, Rushdie viewed it. During the promotional book tour stop at the Art Gallery of Ontario, in Toronto, Canada, Rushdie concluded to the sold-out audience, “Looking at too much television just makes you stupid. You lose the ability to think for yourself.”
On the outside looking in, it appears that the followers of former US President Donald Trump are a large flock of the gullible, especially when one considers the role and influence of televangelism on American culture. In 1960, Pat Robertson offered $37,000 for a small off-the-air UHF television station in Portsmouth, Virginia. It was much less than the $300,000 asking price, but Robertson’s offer was accepted and on the 1st October, 1961, the Christian Broadcasting Network went on air. Televangelism has since morphed into an enormous industry, which, much like Trump, offers a lot but really gives very little.
On average, a typical American views three hours of television daily, enough to influence their perception of America and the world. Those who are gullible to Trump’s lies – the Washington Post Fact Checker verified 30,573 in four years to January, 2021 – have probably watched so much television in their lifetime that they are unable to discern reality.
Before we hasten to mock them, we should check our own belief systems. Many of us have long been manipulated by the same two parties for some 60 years on the basis of divide and conquer. So just who is the more gullible?
