Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge is there a limit to gullibility?

A Manhattan Fortuneteller Cost Him Fortune After Fortune
Maybe the title should be "Gullible's Travels" by Jonathan Not-So-Swift.

That transcends gullibility! (Where'd a guy that dumb get $700,000?)

What is most amazing is that there will inevitably be an even more astounding example of gullibility.

There comes a point where I have to stop feeling any sympathy for someone, and this guy firmly crosses that line. Someone in that state of mind is going to do something monumentally stupid, regardless of whom they associate with. It's not a matter of IF, it's only a matter of WHEN and WHO. I think this psychic has a good case in court to keep the money. She doesn't even have to make a case for believing in what she did. She's an entertainer, and provided him with precisely what he asked for, she gave him hope. She didn't sell results, she sold hope, and he was willing to buy it, at any price.

Honestly though he might have had better luck spending that money on the gal directly. It might not have worked any better, or may have only produced temporary results, but it would certainly have been better invested. A lot of women wouldn't mind "renting" their company for awhile to someone continuously showering them with expensive gifts.

I feel sorry for the victim in this case. Any of us can be gulled into doing something stupid if we want to believe. Like all good scams this one expertly preyed on his desires and weaknesses. Obviously this poor sap was so besotted with the object of his desires that he totally suspended his critical facilities. His inamorata's move to the west coast put her far enough away that his fevered imagination had virtually free rein, unfettered by fact, and could easily be fed by the fortune teller. From that point on he was a pigeon begging to be plucked.

Like the victims of all scams he desperately wanted the unbelievable to be true. How is he different from those who have been willing to believe that by some unimaginable stroke of fate they have been chosen by the widow of the ousted vice-premier of Neverheardofland to help her smuggle her husband's ill-gotten gains out of the country? O those who invested with Bernie Madoff? They thought they were the insiders with access to knowledge available only to those in the "inner circle". In his case he had found someone, the fortune teller, with knowledge of mystical powers and could influence the object of his desires to want him as desperately as he wanted her. I suspect a psychiatrist or psychologist would have a field day analyzing this poor boob. At the base of his gullibility I suspect there is a very lonely man with equally low self esteem who thought he had stumbled upon someone who could make his deepest dreams and wishes come true.

I pity this poor schmuck for being so lonely and so lacking in self esteem that he could fall for this scheme. He doesn't rate our derision, but he is worthy of our pity. As for the fortune teller, I suspect she kept telling herself, "this guy is almost too easy a mark."

Whoa!! You mean that email I got is not legit?

Here's a followup: Criminal Psychics See a Clear Path With the Desperate, a Detective Says

It's interesting that the Detective says palm and tarot card readings become a crime when the psychic says, "Give me money and I’m going to help you". i.e. when the person is told something that's not true.

I wonder what happens when the readers change their approach and say, "I can try to help you but it will require some money." Does their clever lawyer keep them out of the can and allow them to keep the money?

By the way, I'm no longer worried that the scenario joemike described is bogus. It looks like I'm going to get a bundle anyway, as I've since got another email from a customs officer who has found an unopened metal chest full of cash and.....

I admit to having a biased point of view, but I don't see much difference between the psychics and psychologists and psychiatrists.

A reputable psychologist or psychiatrist will work with you to enable you to get to a place by means of your own efforts, and hopefully in a way that is repeatable as needed.

OK, that's a set-up for someone to say a psychic does the same: pay me and here is what will happen. Repeatable—pay me again and I'll tell you more.

Frankly, if the outcome is to the "patient's" liking, then perhaps there is no difference. Alternative (to Western) medicine is a reality and used by many people, quite successfully. The bottom line in any of this as far as I am concerned is "do no harm".

A psychiatrist is an MD. A psychiatrist must go to medical school, and learn neurobiology on top of that. Psychiatrists can diagnose physical brain injury and trauma, prescribe drugs, provide referrals to neurologists or brain surgeons, order laboratory tests, and perform other functions that any licensed MD can perform. I wouldn't conflate psychiatrists with psychologists.

And let's not forget that a psychologist is not the same thing as an MSW or other practitioner commonly referred to as a "psychologist", because a psychologist has an advanced, i.e. PhD, degree whereas the others have only a Masters at best (for whatever it's all worth).

I wouldn't conflate psychologists with psychics, either. The fact that a lot of junk science is promoted by folks calling themselves psychologists isn't an indictment of the field of the study of the human mind.

If the absence of self-promoters, cultists, and exploiters of confirmation bias is a necessary precondition for a field of study to be considered legitimate, then economics is surely just as bad.

As is history (and a passel of others).

A psychiatrist takes your money in exchange for making an honest attempt at helping you. Some of them may string you along a bit and prolong the help, or try to make you dependent on their continued support, but in the end they are actually providing the service of assistance.

A psychic is an entertainer, a performer, an actor. You pay them for a show, for entertainment. Some people look for more though, they look for real help, for answers, and for things that are unreasonable or impossible from a rational perspective. And so some psychics work that into their performance, so you continue to pay for it. It's hard to draw a line between entertainment and some criminal offense. When she offered to hold a seance and let you talk with your dead grandfather, is that fraud? Do they have to word it carefully to avoid fraud? "we will attempt to talk with your grandfather" etc. Or is there some implied "this is obviously impossible and is merely entertainment"?

"Hey kids, lets go to Disney Land, you'll get to meet Mickey Mouse and Snow White!" Do we really need to post signs all over the place that these are not REALLY Micky Mouse and Snow White that you see on TV? To you and me, is pretty obviously entertainment, but not to your kids. I don't see any fundamental difference. Just a difference in the level of reason and sanity, or lack thereof, to be taken advantage of. The psychic above clearly decided to accelerate things though, she really could have had an extended cash-cow / regular customer for many more months or even years, who knows. She decided to go for broke and milk him as rapidly as possible is all. Would it have been more OK if she had extended the performance over say, five years, and still walked away with the same amount of cash? Again I don't see any real difference.

What if in the psychic session with your deceased grandparent you were able to come to a resolution and gain closure on a long outstanding issue that had been bothering you for years? Hmm, sounds like what might happen with a therapist.

However, a significant difference may be that perhaps this is not the intention of the psychic. Hmm, maybe Jon (above post) might argue this also is not the intention of a psychologist or psychiatrist.

I will stick with my original statement of "do no harm" and leave it with whatever works for you.

I would venture most psychics are good practical psychologists without a degree. So it is entirely possible a well intentioned psychic could actually help someone with a mild psychological problem. There are notable differences however. Both the psychic and psychologist practice their trade for the purpose of making money, but…

• the psychologist is trained to recognize signs of dangerous conditions and refer the patient to a psychiatrist or facility capable of dealing with the condition when prudent
• the psychic seldom has any formal training and may easily do more harm than good because of their own lack of knowledge
• psychiatrists are licensed and required to meet rigorous standards of training prescribed by the state and professional organizations (often including years of analysis of the psychologist)
• psychics are generally self taught or have learned their trade from other practitioners
• psychiatrists have a professional code of ethics they must adhere to to retain their license to practice
• psychics have no accountability to anyone
• psychiatry is based on a body of knowledge that has been subjected to scientific study and critical analysis
• psychics work from empirical knowledge that either has never been subjected to scientific analysis or has not been proven through scientific trials
• psychologists are most effective when there is a trust relationship between practitioner and patient
• (admittedly this is splitting semantic hairs but look up the definitions) psychics rely on the credulity of the mark

In the final analysis either the psychologist or psychic may or may not be able to help the patient/client, but there is far less risk of the psychologist doing harm.

Agreed. But as you point out, the psychic is basically accountable to no one, whereas the psychiatrist is legally expected to provide specific help and to act in good faith toward the benefit of their patient. My point above then was that while the scammish behavior would clearly be illegal for a psychiatrist, I think it will be much more difficult to establish this with someone that isn't held to those stringent requirements and is merely an entertainer. They have no legal obligation whatsoever to actually try to help you.

Agreed and in virtually every court jurisdiction in this and most "western" nations psychics have been held liable for any harm done. In the case in question, any halfway competent attorney should be able to prove both civil and criminal damages but it is doubtful the psychic has enough resources to even cover the plaintiff's legal fees in a civil case.

have been or have not been?

have been

Doesn't that contradict "Agreed"?

The key here is in the word help. Psychics have no legal duty to help but they can be held liable when they attempt to defraud. Whether or not the psychic's actions constitute fraud is a matter decided by a jury. But in practice and in spite of the dictum in Common Law of being innocent until proven guilty, I believe a psychic would have a much steeper burden of proof to fullfil than the prosecution — in most jurisdictions.

But they're paying for fantasy? You can't sue Disneyland for fraud because they don't have the actual cast of Frozen? That's fraud if taken literally. Otherwise every psychic on the planet could be sued for fraud?

I haven't read all of the posts, but I would like to comment briefly, if I can, on the subect because it's important and because it has had a tremendous impact on my life.

Whom to trust is one of the most complicated matters I've ever had to confront.

I was told by a doctor when I was a kid that the worst thing a person could be is gullible. I disagree with that. All kids are gullible by nature. Everyone is gullible until they get burned. I learned and still learn about trust at the school of hard knocks, which is to say, experience and error. Not the best way, perhaps, but that's how it often works. One person's experience isn't the same as another's. Therefore one person's capacity to trust isn't the same as another's. Some too much, some too little. I guess we all have to learn from our experience. The tough thing is keeping the grain of wisdom one has acquired without tossing out the entire experience.

I'm not going to criticize someone for trusting. I found I've grown tired of hearing one person criticize another for daring to trust. When I worked for a newspaper, I heard it all the time, the cynical put-down, which was really a subtle admission of a past error or victimization on the part of the accuser—though they would never admit that they, too, had made a similar error as the victim, if it could even be called an error. I call it natural human decency to trust and to be able to trust. I have no great love for humanity myself, whether in mass or as individuals, but I don't like living in a world where people are increasingly paranoid. Computers, I might add, have moved us deeper into parnaoia and cynicism.

I would rather live with people who can give another the benefit of the doubt than with people who are unjustifiably paranoid. Given the times, that's tough. Maybe it's always been tough. Reagan said, Trust but verify. Maybe a good rule, I don't know.

I agree that there are limits, and foolish actions, but sometimes it's tough to know what they are without having pushed against them. I don't see the matter in binary terms: trust v. distrust. I see it in degrees. To what degree I can trust a certain person, a stranger, a co-worker? The relationship with co-workers, for example, is one I still find baffling. Not friends, not relatives, not spouses, not bosses, not neighbors, not teachers. Co-existing presences who must engage in chatter? They might as well be robots. Which will probably happen anyway.