So it just happened to be that my travels landed me in St. Louis this week, on the very day that former Cardinal Mark McGwire finally admitted his steroid use… after years of dodging the subject.

Unlike most public figures under accusation, he never outright lied about his guilt.  But along with breaking Roger Maris’s season home run record, McGwire is also remembered for inartfully dodging questions about steroid use in his 2005 Congressional testimony.  You can see the video here.

Hey, it didn’t take Columbo to know that he was avoiding the truth.  It was easy to deduce by his “answers” that he had taken steroids.  Still, he accomplished his goal:  He didn’t admit the truth, and he didn’t lie… that’s the delicate art of deception. 

Celebrity scandal is a national sport, and Mark McGwire is just the latest rabbit in the snare.  We love this game because the kill is so slow and painful.  It’s the best drama on TV, and it goes like this: 

1-Allegation

2-Denial

3-Confession and Apology

The final stage of the process may be the most fascinating—and overlooked—part of the process.  Confessions and apologies always travel together, because one softens the other. 

So public apologies are always interesting… and always dubious.  How can we know if an apology is sincere, or just the next phase of manipulation from the person who tried to pull a smooth one to begin with? 

Whether it’s Mark, Tiger, John, or someone closer to you, there are a few things to consider that will help you determine whether the contrition you’re hearing is heartfelt:

1-Was it Voluntary?  Few apologies are truly voluntary.  They typically come at the end of the trail, when guilt is obvious and all avenues of escape have been exhausted.  Politicians and celebrities have little choice; scandal is a public feast, and hearing the apology is our desert.  When they’re caught, they have to apologize… it’s the final step in the sequence (see above).  

2-Does it Contain an Explanation?  Where does an explanation end, and an excuse begin?  Few people can admit their wrongs and simply say, ”I was wrong, I’m sorry”.  Though it may be very subtle, they typically follow their apology with explanations, which are really just rationalizations why their behavior was pretty reasonable after all. 

In this NYT article, McGwire is cited using several lines that demonstrate this common tactic:

“I seriously thought about retiring, but my dad talked me out of it.”  (If I’d quit when I wanted to, I wouldn’t have reached the point where I needed to use steroids)

“I used very, very low dosages.”  (Minimizing:  I did it, but not more than I had to)

“I didn’t use it for strength.  I used it to help me recover from injuries.”  (Unlike all the others, I used it for practical reasons)

Note:  This last point “I didn’t use it for strength” is McGwire’s way of subtly asserting that steroids didn’t play a factor in his taking the home run record from Maris.

The statement from Tiger Woods contained 5 paragraphs.  The first one admitted unspecified “transgressions”, and the next 4 paragraphs were aimed at criticizing public interest in his affairs, and came close to presenting himself as a victim.  It’s interesting that he closed with “I offer my profound apology”.  Though most casual readers would infer the meaning without Tiger having to say it, this is not “I’m sorry”.

3-Do They Want their Apologies Known?  When a person makes sure to tell of their charity or kindness, their true intentions have to be considered.  Similarly, when a person wants credit for a private apology, one has to consider what their true motivation was.

In the interview with Bob Costas, McGwire said that he had called Roger Maris’s widow.  “I think she was shocked that I called her,” McGwire said.  “I felt that I needed to do that. They’ve been great supporters of mine.   She was disappointed, and she has every right to be.  I couldn’t tell her how so sorry I was.”

There was no need to tell us of his apology to the Maris family other than to gain credit for it.  As an aside, it’s interesting that he said, “I couldn’t tell her how so sorry I was.”  If you want to know how to tell if someone is lying, or just being deceptive… listen.  People always convey more than they realize when they speak to you.   

4-Was the Person Caught?  Okay, this one’s the biggie:  Have you ever heard of a public figure (or anyone else) coming forward to apologize for something that hadn’t been discovered, or they hadn’t been caught at?  Why didn’t Mark McGwire, Tiger Woods, or John Edwards apologize long ago for whatever they’d done?  No one apologizes until they’re caught, proven “guilty”, and there’s no other way out (see #1 above). 

McGwire had 8 years since his retirement to admit steroid use, apologize to the public, and the Maris family.  So why did he wait until now?  The answer is never hard to find.  In this case, McGwire was recently named as the Cardinals new batting coach, and the steroid issue wouldn’t subside.  It had to be put to rest, once and for all. 

In his August, 2008 statement, John Edwards appeared to do a pretty good job at self-deprecation and admission, and fooled many into believing he was sincere.  The truth is, most of his “apology” was inferred by the reader, rather than spoken by Edwards.  While gullible readers of his statement swooned, he actually defended himself at the same time (see #2 above). 

In the first paragraph he claimed to have been “99% honest”. 

In the second paragraph he asserts that he’s not the father of the baby, but it’s since been revealed that at the time of this statement he had drafted close aid Andrew Young to claim fatherhood; Edwards recently admitted paternity… and gave another apology. 

In the third paragraph he actually writes that to say he’s sorry wouldn’t be adequate… and so he doesn’t say it.

Then he offers that you can beat him up… but wait, he’s already done that.  Like Woods’ statement and many others, this is a way to appear downtrodden and defeated in order to gain sympathy and ward off further criticism.

Ultimately, public apologies are meaningless.  The proof?  They always come when the person is caught (see #4).  The other reason they’re a waste?  In most cases, the public really isn’t entitled to one anyway.

________________________________________________________________________

Leave a comment with your thoughts, I’m interested in your take…

-jef 

Anyway, I’m sort of particular about the movies I watch around Christmas.  It’s sort of like pairing wine with food; sometimes to get the combination with the best mojo, you have to be willing to go against common theories. 

Whether you’re snowed in, have the week off and can’t find anything to do, or are just trying to get away from family, I wanted to give you (in no particular order) my pick of the 5 best movies to watch Christmas week.   

(Be warned:  You’ll need Netflix for some of these, Blockbuster can’t handle this order…)

1–You Only Live Twice - Even stranger than movies and Christmas going hand-in-hand, is James Bond and Christmas going hand-in-hand.  But apparently they do, you can catch a TV marathon of Bond films every year at this time.  If you want Bond, you want Sean Connery, not the knockoffs and retreads that followed him.  He’s at his best in this movie; gotta love a guy who’s got a fold-up helicopter.    

2–Yojimbo - This 1961 Japanese film follows a masterless Samurai who wanders into a town where two clans are locked in a vicious feud.  I always steer clear of subtitled movies, but this one’s worth the trouble.  Darkly humorous and one of a kind; it was remade by Sergio Leone in 1964 as Fistful of Dollars with Clint Eastwood.

3–Harvey - It’s not Miracle on 34th Street, but a movie starring Jimmy Stewart with an imaginary rabbit friend?  I had to know how they pulled off a film with that premise; so I watched it, and it immediately became one of my 10 favorite films ever.   And since it’s Jimmy, you can watch it with kids.

4–Dead Reckoning - Dark, shadowy, mysterious, this movie is everything film noir is supposed to be.  In fact, it’s so film noir it’s almost a spoof of the genre, complete with Humphrey Bogart talking over scenes throughout. 

5–Rumor Has It - Just to prove I have a lighter, more contemporary side, I’ve included this recent Rob Reiner film starring Jennifer Anniston, whose character realizes that The Graduate was based on a true story…. and she’s a product of it.  This is a unique, well done, and underrated movie.

So here’s to cold shrimp, Dick Clark, and shotguns at midnight…  

Enjoy your New Year,

-jef

If you’ve ever been to Venice Beach (California) you know it’s a freak show. 

Anything goes… and it usually does. 

Nearly every time I’ve been down there, I’ve seen The World’s Greatest Wino.  He’s always standing in the same spot, chanting the same line, “Jingle bells, jingle bells, help me get drunk.”  I went to Venice again this week with a friend who’d never been, and there was The Wino again—like he’d never left. 

Like all the other boardwalk hustlers, he holds a cup and waits for a contribution.  I’ve never personally seen anybody give him money, but unless he’s actually independently wealthy and does this for fun, he’s gotta be raking in enough to justify standing there every day, right?

I’ve seen hundreds of panhandlers and about as many approaches to the art, but The Wino is interesting to me because he uses a method that you don’t see too often:  Blatant honesty.

Maybe he really is a wino.

Maybe it’s all schtick, and the guy doesn’t drink at all.

As with most things in life, the perception matters more than the reality.

Whether he’s a bonafide wino or just a clever marketer is irrelevant.  Because either way, he’s using his mantra both as a gimmick and a device; there’s something disarming about blatant honesty that seemingly goes against the interests of the person who uses it.

So here’s a little secret:  If you want to gain the trust of another person, admit something that’s unfavorable to you.  Blatant honesty is in short supply, but it’s also endearing and seductive.

And as an aside, The Wino knows another secret:  To compete in the marketplace, you MUST differentiate yourself from the competition. 

Oh, and one more:  Most people limit themselves (and their success) by obeying their Comfort Zone; The World’s Greatest Wino may not even have one, and that allows him to make money in ways that most people wouldn’t even consider—which is an attribute, if not a skill. 

So he stands out at Venice Beach (hard to do in itself), but will The Wino ever achieve the level of branding accomplished by Time Square’s Naked Cowboy (who actually first appeared at Venice Beach himself)? 

Until his singing improves, it’s doubtful. 

But who knows?  This is still America, you know.

-jef

Okay, you know I’m not a big advocate of reading body language, right? 

So when I DO endorse a piece of body language?  You know I’m really sold on it.  My advice:  If you want to know how to read body language, start by learning how to read Nose Rubs. 

As promised, here’s the video clip of an inarguably striking Nose Rub.  I’d like to get your thoughts on this, and what it tells you about Nose Rubs generally. 

Even some of the “experts” in this field still aren’t convinced of their power… so watch this video a few times and tell me… is the Rub coincidental? 

Leave a comment with your take, I’m interested in your angle on this…

-jef

_____________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE - 11-20-09:

Sure, sometimes their nose  just itches… but stress can cause the nerves inside our nose to tingle, and that causes us to rub it. 

So what causes that stress?  That’s the trick to unravel.  Sometimes it’s just being uncomfortable in a given situation.  But practicing deception—or just considering the use of it—causes enough stress to bring the nose tingling. 

Pay close attention to what’s happening and what’s being said, and you’ll usually be able to easily determine what caused the nose rub and whether it’s just discomfort… or a sign that deception is afoot. 

Watch, listen, and have fun…

So if you missed the interview, here’s the podcast:  Mike McConnell Show interview 

Oh, and I told listeners I’d have a video up soon that will demonstrate (inarguably) that nose gestures are real, meaningful… and easy to spot, of course.  That video is coming soon, and it’s short:  Just 30 seconds!

Anyway, hope you enjoy the interview!

-jef

It’s pretty common that people hear the words of others and put their own spin on them.  Sometimes they hear what they want to hear.  Sometimes they even hear what they don’t want to hear… and still give you the credit for saying it.

If you’ve read my book (shameless plug:  If you haven’t, click on the cover above to get yours) you probably know more about me than I realized I was giving up when I wrote it.  But here’s something you don’t know about me:  I’m into movies.  Especially the old ones.  There’s nothing like a good movie, and sure, they still make good ones, but there’s nothin’ like the old ones. 

I’m no expert on old cinema, just a fan.  Hey, you won’t find this stuff at Blockbuster, but thanks to Netflix you can still get anything you want, so lately I’ve been going through the works of Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney, among others.  The other night I watched Cagney’s Angels with Dirty Faces (1938), probably his most famous film, and a great example of his ability to play the cool, likeable… and ruthless gangster.

I never watched a Cagney movie as a kid, but I’d grown up occasionally hearing the “You dirty rat” quote.  It was the line everybody associated with him, the most memorable he’d ever spoken.  But there’s just one problem:  He never said it. 

Just like Cary Grant never said his most best known line, “Judy, Judy, Judy.”

And Humphrey Bogart never said, “Play it again, Sam,” in Casablanca. 

It’s interesting that these three men are more associated with these lines—ones they never said—than with anything they actually did say.

How does that happen?  It’s one thing to be misquoted, but for the misquotes to overshadow all their thousands of actual lines?  That’s amazing.  It’s also proof that from a marketing standpoint, the unintentional or unforeseen can be more powerful and lasting than the most clever of publicity ploys.  These memorable, yet fictitious lines have kept these guys and their films in the public consciousness for decades.

So if legendary film stars can be misquoted for 70 years running, you and I are at great risk, too.  Putting your words across so they’re understood as you mean them doesn’t happen by accident.  But they can easily be misunderstood by accident.

But the even greater risk is that you’ll miss the real—the hidden—meanings in what others are saying.  Even when deception and lying aren’t at play outright, not being astute with the words puts us at a handicap.  People fall prey to this all the time, too.  It can cause you to pay too much for a new car, miss out on a business opportunity, or misinterpret a personal conversation. 

Everything  you do depends on how deftly you speak, and how well you’re able to decipher the subtleties of what’s said to you.

So there was a line in Angels that struck me, spoken by Cagney’s character, Rocky Sullivan:  “Always remember, never be a sucker.”

Good advice then.

Good advice now.

Good advice always.

Pay attention to what’s said… people are always revealing more than they mean to.

-jef

http://www.deceptionreport.com/main.php

You want proof?  I don’t blame you.  Stay with me, I’ll give it to you.

Deception is a game, of sorts:  One side plays, and the other gets played.  Nobody enjoys that, of course, feeling like a sucker; or worse yet, appearing to be one.  And one-on-one’s bad enough, but in front of the whole planet?  Yikes, man, now that’s hard on a guy’s ego.

But that’s just what happened with the whole Balloon Boy thing last week; the sheriff got played, felt like a sucker in front of the whole world, and then to save face, he lied about being fooled.

Sounds convoluted, I know, but it’s really not.

On the day of the incident (Thursday), suspicions of a hoax immediately swirled.  Larimer County, Colorado Sheriff Jim Alderden said, “We were convinced after talking to parents and having investigators on scene during the duration of event, that the parents were being honest. Their verbal, body language and emotions were consistent with events taking place, believing their child was in the aircraft.  Our people didn’t think this was being faked.”  (I’m guessing they don’t have The Insider’s Report on Lying)

Alderden cited the expert judgment of his seasoned investigators as proof the Heene’s were being truthful—which later served only as proof that even veteran cops can be fooled (and that the average person has even less ability to tell if someone is lying).  

On Friday, the sheriff was facing a new round of controversy after the Heene family’s appearance on TV the night before, in which Balloon Boy Falcon Heene made the dubious statement to his parents, “You guys said we did it for the show.” 

In the video segment above that aired on Friday, Sheriff Alderden once again committed to his position on the incident, saying, ”We believe that this was a legitimate incident, and not a hoax.  We still believe that.”  He went on to say that his office planned to re-interview the Heene’s the next day (Saturday), but stated they had yet to contact the Heene’s to ask for the interview.  

When it was announced on Sunday that Ms. Heene had spilled the beans and the whole thing was a setup, Alderden claimed that his Friday statements about their lack of suspicion had been false, a ruse to disarm the Heenes.  I submit to you that of the two positions, his second statement was the lie. 

Why I conclude this:

1-Police ineptitude in high-publicity incidents is tough on the “agency ego”.  When Falcon was found “hiding” in the garage on the first day of the incident, Alderden had to admit his deputies had failed to find him during their search of the house:  “We were a little bit embarrassed about that.  But they did a very thorough search of the house and attic.”  Thorough, maybe, but a failure, certainly.  So they’d already had one bonafide instance of ineptitude; the sheriff surely didn’t welcome another, especially his own.

2-During the interview in the video above, the sheriff said they planned to re-interview the family the next day, but that they hadn’t contacted the family yet to ask for the interview. 

If this had been part of a clever scheme to lower the defenses of the Heene’s, rather than announce their intentions on national TV and give the Heenes a full day’s notice to prepare or get an attorney, they would have instead just gone to the family the next day and caught them flat-footed for the interview.  (If we take the sheriff at his word, then the announcement itself would be ineptitude.) 

3-On page 150 of Conquering Deception I wrote, “When a person openly states his opinion or position on a subject, he will be slow to recant it.  This phenomenon is directly tied to ego, of course.” 

This is proven true once again, this time by the sheriff.  He had cited the expertise of his skilled investigators and their judgment of the Heene’s “verbal, body language and emotions”, and then he’d publicly stated his opinion during numerous interviews that the Heenes were truthful—most notably, after Falcon’s slip on Thursday night. 

He had committed publicly that the Heene’s story was true.  To admit being fooled—being wrong—when so many had already concluded the whole thing was hoax would have been a tough thing.  So salvage at this point required the real ruse, and the sheriff made this statement to cover his mistaken judgment:  ”It became very clear to us at that point (Falcon’s remark) that they were lying.”  But to get the truth, “it was very important that they maintain their trust with us.”  He added that they had intentionally misled the media to carry out their “game plan” of gathering the truth.

It’s interesting that he again cited his investigators’ judgment of “nonverbal responses” and “verbal cues”—which they had failed to accurately decipher on the first day.  The sheriff was truthful when he made this admission, that the Heene’s “put on a very good show for us.”  And they should have; the Heenes met at a Hollywood acting school.

So the Heene’s deceived everybody, the sheriff deceived the media, and the media isn’t happy.  The reaction by Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett in the clip below is good example of how offended folks get when they’re fooled—even when it’s not directed at them personally!  And notice they’re working from the premise (which I don’t buy) that the sheriff knew all along:

I’ve often told audiences during speaking events that lying is something everyone does, but nobody wants to be caught doing.  But this whole affair has made it apparent to me there’s something even more embarrassing to the ego than being caught telling a lie:  Being caught… being fooled. 

How bad is it?  They’d rather volunteer a confession to lying.

If you have a take on any of this, your thoughts are welcome, leave a comment…

-jef

Her comments have been recounted across countless blogs and news cites, with all the pieces I’ve seen titled, “Jennifer Garner is a Compulsive Liar”.

Why the rough label?  Well, she confessed… that she lies. 

So 2 points come to mind: 

1-Well, she’s actually not a compulsive liar, just an ordinary one, and the use of this label underscores that when it comes to lying and deception, misconceptions abound. 

Compulsive liars tell lies when there’s no need to, and Garner explains that she lies for the sake of, well… practicality,  you could say.  (Lots of folks just find it simpler to lie, than tell the truth—initially, anyway.)

and,

2-The articles are written as if Garner is an anomaly; truth is, everyone lies.  So this revelation about her is no more revealing than if she’d admitted nose-picking (the other thing that everyone does, but no one admits to). 

The interesting part of all this really isn’t that she tells lies, but that she openly acknowledges it.  That’s something you just don’t hear of.  And what’s the prize for this unrivaled display of blatant honesty?  She gets the label of being a compulsive liar. 

Has everyone told a lie?  Yes. 

Will they do it again?  Sure. 

So who would you consider more trustworthy:  The person who lies and refuses to acknowledge it, or the person who owns up? 

Comment with your thoughts…

-jef

But after weeks of searching, finally it happened one evening.  I found a cicada working its way out and showed it to Tav, and I got the picture you see here.  It took this guy an hour and a half to get to this point, so you could say he was persistent alright.  I’ll tell you at the end of this post what eventually happened to him, but in the meantime let’s consider persistence, its necessity—and its pitfalls.

Tell me I’m wrong:  The business success gurus would have you believe that quitting is antithetical to success, that persistence is king. 

Sure, I know history vouches for perseverance. 

There’s the story of Colonel Sanders and how he heard “no” 1008 times. 

There was Thomas Edison, who defended his lack of a workable light bulb by asserting, “I have not failed 700 times… I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work.”

When it comes to success strategies, QUIT has always been a dirty word.  After all, quitting is failing, right? 

Well… sometimes. 

While the value of persistence is obvious enough that it’s touted everywhere, here’s what nobody ever tells you:  Quitting isn’t always a component of failure; it’s also a talent. 

Knowing when to quit one thing, so you can transform into another endeavor, strategy or simply a different phase of the same effort, is a little-known key to success.

Stories like the Colonel’s and Tom’s are inspiring, but here’s what they don’t cover:  Persistence doesn’t always pay. 

Persistence can play out on 2 very different levels, one ending with the successes we always here about, the other with failure.  And when persistence fails its student, one of these 2 factors are at work:

1-Persistence Interrupted—What we never hear are the stories (because they aren’t known) of those who thought they had a great idea, persisted—and then quit just before they found success. 

It’s been said that success with an idea, invention, or business often comes just after the most desperate, hopeless, and difficult stage of the effort.  It’s the most trying time, just before the peak of the mountain is reached, where the truly committed are separated from, well, the rest—those who are doomed to “average” at their own hands.

The other form is…

2-Futile Persistence—Here’s the other kind of story we never hear:  Of those who persisted at an effort that was impossible—and they refused to adapt, adjust, or abandon it.  They didn’t know when to quit… and do something different.

Focusing on the outcome is at the same time intoxicating and blinding, empowering and deadly.  Keeping the goal in mind takes us to it, but there are also times when changing the plan is a requirement for survival.  Blindly clutching to one thing and ignoring workable alternatives is fatal.

So if you have something novel you want to pursue, it can only fall into one of these 2 categories:

1-With enough persistence, it will work, or…

2-It’s unworkable, regardless how long it’s tried.

So here’s the big question:  How can you know which category your goal falls into?  How can you figure out whether you have a plan/idea/invention that will eventually work with enough persistence…  or whether it’s truly impossible, regardless?

So back to the persistent cicada:  Every 10 minutes or so I went out and checked his progress and snapped another picture.  The last time I went out, I was about 20 feet away when I saw a bird fly up from the grass, about 10 feet from where the cicada was “hatching”.  

When I got there, the shell was in the grass, and the cicada was gone.  He’d made the mistake of coming out of his shell just inches off the ground, within easy reach of the bird.  He had the persistence required, but his bad judgment illustrates that timing and placement are just two more necessary ingredients for success—that’s another post, I guess. 

So sometimes it’s smart to quit this thing… and move on to the next thing.  The art of success is knowing that what you’re seeking will come, or knowing when you should quit—and try something else.

Every entrepreneur, celebrity, or public figure you’ve ever heard of “failed” many times before they became a household name.  Their vital talent wasn’t their obvious one:  It was knowing when to quit… and change the plan.

Have you ever quit something too soon?

Have you ever succeeding when others would have quit?

Of all the success skills that no one talks about, this one may be the most critical:  Do you have the talent to know when it’s wise to quit—so you can find success?

-jef

Welcome to the club.  Subterfuge is a sport, and you’re in the game—whether you know it or not.

Trusting others is necessary… and it’s also risky.  Trust another person, and you’re taking a chance, you become vulnerable.  Cynical, you think?  Put to words, reality sometimes sounds that way.  

Why do people violate our trust?  Well, the specific situations are infinite, of course, but those who betray us nearly always do it for one of these 3 reasons:

1-Carelessness — (e.g., repeating something you told them in confidence)

2-Self-interest — (for their selfish pleasure or gain, they do what they like—and it happens to be harmful to you)

3-Fraud and Subterfuge — (they intend to deceive you in order to get what they’re after)

None of these are much fun if you’re on the receiving end, but the last one—Fraud and subterfuge—is usually the most devious, the most damaging, and the one that involves the most intent and premeditation.

I read this NaplesNews article over the weekend about a South Florida couple who trusted an art dealer to the tune of $700,000… and later wished they hadn’t.  This story is a perfect example of how clever con artists manipulate the trust of others to get what they’re after:  Money. 

The good news:  These folks are rare. 

The bad news:  You’ll find their techniques being used in varying degrees by “ordinary” people that you run across every day.  In business dealings.  At the office.  Even socially, and in personal relationships.

The techniques are pretty simple, and believe it or not, they come naturally to many—no training required.  Have you ever known someone who seemed gifted with the ability to “get in” and then get what they want?  They had the ability to be convincing, disarming, and manipulative all at the same time?  Like Mr. Batson—if the accusations are true—they had the instincts to use one or more of these tools:

1-Incrementalism—When I worked undercover, I rarely bought dope from a person on first meeting them.  I talked.  I listened.  I sat around.  I drank a beer with them if they offered, I hung out, and then I left—just like anybody else they’d meet would.  And then I’d come back.  After several visits, they usually brought up the subject of drugs.  And with their invitation, I bought. 

As the allegations go, the art dealer Mr. Batson got to know the couple, socialized with them, started with low-dollar deals, and then incrementally increased them over time.  Those who move too quickly become obvious, and then suspect.  People who are masters at mind manipulation are masters at moving naturally, reasonably… and incrementally. 

2-Credible trappings—Serial killer Ted Bundy sometimes wore a leg cast or an arm sling, and would ask his targeted victims for help.  As a former chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, Bernie Madoff had obvious credibility with investors.  James Batson was a curator for a reputable artist and gallery… so he had the trappings of credibility in the art world.

Because we all tend to trust people until they give us reason to doubt them, if you meet someone who looks the part, speaks well, and seems knowlegeable, you tend to believe them, don’t you?  And the longer we associate with them, the more we tend to trust them.  If they’re really good (or we just aren’t on our toes), sometimes we can even fall into the trap of giving a person credit for Credible Trappings with nothing more to go on than what they tell us.

Most people are honest, but just keep in mind:  The people who are most successful at deception are the people who are most convincing in what they say.  

3-Third party endorsement—As an interrogator interviewing suspects, I regularly heard criminals make claims such as, ”You can ask anybody, they’ll tell you I’m not like that.” 

When they realize they have no legitimate credibility, manipulative people often find it any way they can.  Mr. Batson allegedly drew on the reputation of Sotheby’s to lend credibility to the works he “sold” the Smiths.  He even told them Tiger Woods was interested in one of the paintings—increasing its appeal and no doubt creating a sense of urgency in the Smiths’ decision to purchase it.  

4-Sympathy—Using an approach similar to Ted Bundy’s technique of feigning injury, Batson is said to have alleged he had cancer.  This not only created sympathy, but on a deeper level, it made Batson real.  The more detail a person gives, the more open they appear, the more we tend to open up to them… and trust them.

5-Greed—If another person can make us feel comfortable, we’ll trust them.  When we trust them, our defenses go to idle.  

And when greed comes into play, defenses always go down.  And it doesn’t have to be about money.  When something unreachable suddenly seems attainable, our judgment becomes blurred by the thought of getting our hands on it.  Greed is an emotion, and one that has the power to easily override logic. 

Are you a trusting person?  Do you trust easily… or are you a “hard sell”? 

How easily do you trust some you’ve just met?  Do you rely more on appearance… or words… or something else?

How do you decide who is safe to trust?  Maybe more to the point, do you trust yourself to make the right decisions?

Have thoughts or experiences to share?  Leave a comment…

-jef