Cheats and liars
Peter H.M. Brooks
might be of interest:
"
Title: You can judge a book by its cover - Evidence that cheaters may
look different from cooperators
Type: Article
Author(s): Yamagishi, T;Tanida, S;Mashima, R;Shimoma, E;Kanazawa, S
Journal: EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Vol: 24 Year: 2003 Issue: 4 Pgs. 290-301
Abstract: Cosmides and Tooby argue that humans possess a
domain-specific cheater detection module, which allows them to keep
track of who has honored and who has violated social contracts.
Consistent with this logic, others demonstrate that humans better
recognize faces of known cheaters than those of known cooperators. We
show, in Experiments 1-3, that humans better recognize faces of
cheaters than those of cooperators when they do not know who are
cheaters and cooperators. Experiment 4 demonstrates, however, that
humans think they recognize cheaters' faces even when they have not
seen them before. The results of these experiments suggest that
cheaters might look different from cooperators, possibly due to
beliefs and personality traits that make them less ideal exchange
partners, and the human mind might be capable of picking up on subtle
visual cues that cheaters' faces give off.
"
Assuming that the above is the case, I wonder what the situation is with
well known and proven public liars. Do they manage to conceal these clues or
are there only a few human minds capable of picking up these subtle visual
cues?
On the other hand, is it simply that cheaters make better politicians
because they are more easily recognised - akin to the principle that any
publicity is good publicity?
This result does reinforce my belief that I ought to take my intuitions as
to people's character seriously.
--
"We pride ourselves on our peace and stability" - Zimbabwean President
Robert Mugabe
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
__________________
Reply:
If there is an identifiable cheaters face then there must also be an identifiable neutral or non-cheaters face. Since the neutral face will have a selective advantage, presumably cheaters will evolve some way to mimic the characteristics of the neutral face. hence over time, the cheaters face should become rare and disappear.
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lance Lachenicht" <Lache...@nu.ac.za> wrote in message
news:10626754...@osprey.und.ac.za...
identifiable neutral or non-cheaters face. Since the neutral face will have
a selective advantage, presumably cheaters will evolve some way to mimic the
characteristics of the neutral face. hence over time, the cheaters face
should become rare and disappear.
>
have identifiable cheaters. There's an old saw that a man is responsible for
his face once he is over forty. I understand this to mean that the habitual
expression shapes the face. Non-psychopaths do have a choice to lie and
cheat, or not, so I wouldn't imagine that it would be possible to tell for
young people. Maybe further experiments would need to be performed to
establish if it was innate or became ingrained over time.
Had Adolf Hitler become a successful artist (and the parallel universe
theory suggests that there are such alternitive universes) I'd imagine that
many of his nastier characteristics would have remained invisible. It would
be an interesting thought experiment to have a portrait of that alternative
face.
--
Men don't pay you to sleep with them. They pay you to go home - Philip Roth
'The Human Stain' pg 236
Peter Ashby
Lance Lachenicht<Lache...@nu.ac.za> wrote:
>
> If there is an identifiable cheaters face then there must also be an
> identifiable neutral or non-cheaters face. Since the neutral face will have a
> selective advantage, presumably cheaters will evolve some way to mimic the
> characteristics of the neutral face. hence over time, the cheaters face
> should become rare and disappear.
>
This assumes that the ability to detect cheaters is uniform in the
population. This was not apparently tested in the research. The do say
there's a sucker born every minute.
In various of Dawkin's books are discussions of models from people like
Maynard-Keynes where the honest/cheater strategies can be shown to be
evolutionarily stable.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-E9C58...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> In article <10626754...@osprey.und.ac.za>,
> Lance Lachenicht<Lache...@nu.ac.za> wrote:
>
> >
> > If there is an identifiable cheaters face then there must also be an
> > identifiable neutral or non-cheaters face. Since the neutral face will
have a
> > selective advantage, presumably cheaters will evolve some way to mimic
the
> > characteristics of the neutral face. hence over time, the cheaters face
> > should become rare and disappear.
> >
> This assumes that the ability to detect cheaters is uniform in the
> population. This was not apparently tested in the research. The do say
> there's a sucker born every minute.
>
> In various of Dawkin's books are discussions of models from people like
> Maynard-Keynes where the honest/cheater strategies can be shown to be
> evolutionarily stable.
>
currently have a fairly stable ration between the two - just as we have a
fairly stable ratio between sexes.
It would be interesting to see if the identification of cheaters could be
automated - that might start to skew the ratio!
Peter Ashby
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to see if the identification of cheaters could be
> automated - that might start to skew the ratio!
Only if you can stop them mating, and that assumes the type is genetic
and not an inevitable subset occupying an exploitable niche.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <bj7id7$cvc$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> >
> > It would be interesting to see if the identification of cheaters could
be
> > automated - that might start to skew the ratio!
>
> Only if you can stop them mating, and that assumes the type is genetic
> and not an inevitable subset occupying an exploitable niche.
>
following would happen:
- X starts exploiting this niche
- X develops the recognisable characteristics
- X is recognised as a cheat, by the cheatspotter machine
- X is not trusted so can't get credit etc. etc.
- X stops cheating as it confers no advantage
With the above repeated for all X who are susceptible the ratio would fall.
You would only be left with those stupid or psychopathic enough not to learn
from their mistakes, or, in the latter case, maybe to provide the smallest
pool possible of those who can cheat without being spotted as cheaters.
--
The American President is a coward who was at the head of a venal and
corrupt administration. This really is a completely unsupportable government
and I look forward to it being overthrown as much as I looked forward to
Saddam Hussein being overthrown. - Ken Livingstone
Lance
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> > If there is an identifiable cheaters face then there must also be an
> > identifiable neutral or non-cheaters face. Since the neutral face will
have a
> > selective advantage, presumably cheaters will evolve some way to mimic
the
> > characteristics of the neutral face. hence over time, the cheaters face
> > should become rare and disappear.
> >
> This assumes that the ability to detect cheaters is uniform in the
> population. This was not apparently tested in the research. The do say
> there's a sucker born every minute.
>
> In various of Dawkin's books are discussions of models from people like
> Maynard-Keynes where the honest/cheater strategies can be shown to be
> evolutionarily stable.
>
> Peter
Maynard-Smith perhaps? Definitely NOT Keynes, brilliant though he was.
Are you thinking of the hawk-dove simulations? I don't think he Prisoners
dilemma really fits.
Lance
Jim Purdie
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:bj73vf$2oq$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
It is known as paranoia, Peter. Humans are so good at pattern recognition
that they sometimes see patterns that are not there. 8^)
JP
>
> On the other hand, is it simply that cheaters make better politicians
> because they are more easily recognised - akin to the principle that any
> publicity is good publicity?
>
> This result does reinforce my belief that I ought to take my intuitions as
> to people's character seriously.
>
But if con-men were recognisable, they couldn't make a living, surely? I
have always heard that the best con-men look more honest than average, which
argues that we have a cheat-detecting system, but that it is not at all
infallible. Evolution would presumably lead to an "arms race", in which
con-men would look more and more honest, while the rest of us became more
and more suspicious, but I suppose that that would tend to make ordinary
business transactions more difficult, due to mutual paranoia. So, as in so
much else, we strike a balance.
Jim Purdie
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Jim Purdie" <jimp...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:swO5b.1220$cg.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
to get you.
The research I quoted shows that people recognise this accurately - at least
some of the time.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, is it simply that cheaters make better politicians
> > because they are more easily recognised - akin to the principle that any
> > publicity is good publicity?
> >
> > This result does reinforce my belief that I ought to take my intuitions
as
> > to people's character seriously.
> >
>
> But if con-men were recognisable, they couldn't make a living, surely? I
> have always heard that the best con-men look more honest than average,
which
> argues that we have a cheat-detecting system, but that it is not at all
> infallible. Evolution would presumably lead to an "arms race", in which
> con-men would look more and more honest, while the rest of us became more
> and more suspicious, but I suppose that that would tend to make ordinary
> business transactions more difficult, due to mutual paranoia. So, as in so
> much else, we strike a balance.
>
That is why the research finding is interesting. It is counter intuitive.
As far as I can see there are some people who look as dishonest as they
are - some don't. My hypothesis, based on this finding, is that psychopaths
probably don't look dishonest, whilst normal people who try to be con men
do - this echoes some of the discussion we had on psychopathy a little while
ago.
--
Hark, wretches! how I mean to martyr you. This one hand yet is left to cut
your throats, Whilst that Lavinia 'tween her stumps doth hold the baisin
that receives your guilty blood. -Titus Andronicus (Hastivibrax)
kames.smiths
>
> As far as I can see there are some people who look as dishonest as
they
> are - some don't. My hypothesis, based on this finding, is that
psychopaths
> probably don't look dishonest, whilst normal people who try to be
con men
> do - this echoes some of the discussion we had on psychopathy a
little while
> ago.
Normal people might be, and might appear to be, anxious when lying
(due to fear of punishment), whereas psychopathic people might be
relatively relaxed.
Dave Smith
Rick White
"Peter H.M. Brooks"wrote:
Hi Peter,
> Author(s): Yamagishi, T;Tanida, S;Mashima, R;Shimoma, E;Kanazawa,
Canadian (who lives in Japan) sees topic, notices all those Japanese names,
and the red flags go up!
Some questions:
1. Is this a Japan published journal?
2. Were the test subjects Japanese?
3. If yes to either of the above, how did the researchers shift for cultural
differences?
I have several concerns, including:
Japanese "research" generally sucks except at the highest levels (there's a
reason why almost no westerners come here to attend university).
The Japanese are notoriously bad at evaluating themselves (well, what
culture isn't?).
The Japanese tend to believe whatever those in authority/in the know/etc.
tell them. By my (Canadian) standards, they're all suckers. By an American's
standards, I'm sure us government-loving Canadians are suckers.
Anyway, you probably get my general drift. I believe *I* can spot a con man.
Don't we all?
Rick
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Rick White" <kyk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bjd1fn$hijh2$1...@ID-86354.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks"wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> > Author(s): Yamagishi, T;Tanida, S;Mashima, R;Shimoma, E;Kanazawa,
>
> Canadian (who lives in Japan) sees topic, notices all those Japanese
names,
> and the red flags go up!
>
> Some questions:
> 1. Is this a Japan published journal?
> 2. Were the test subjects Japanese?
> 3. If yes to either of the above, how did the researchers shift for
cultural
> differences?
>
>
>
so I don't think your anti-Japanese research points carry. I'm not sure
where the researchers themselves live.
Philip Preston
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
It's not so famous that I've ever heard of it. Perhaps you're thinking of
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get
you", which has several of the same words but not quite the same meaning.
>
>The research I quoted shows that people recognise this accurately - at
least
>some of the time.
As I underand the abstract you quoted, it was the experimenters who
established a corellation between the subjects' reactions and the facts of
the matter regarding cheaters. There is nothing to indicate the subjects
were aware of it themselves.
>>
>> >
>> > On the other hand, is it simply that cheaters make better politicians
>> > because they are more easily recognised - akin to the principle that
any
>> > publicity is good publicity?
>> >
>> > This result does reinforce my belief that I ought to take my intuitions
>as
>> > to people's character seriously.
>> >
>>
>> But if con-men were recognisable, they couldn't make a living, surely? I
>> have always heard that the best con-men look more honest than average,
>which
>> argues that we have a cheat-detecting system, but that it is not at all
>> infallible. Evolution would presumably lead to an "arms race", in which
>> con-men would look more and more honest, while the rest of us became more
>> and more suspicious, but I suppose that that would tend to make ordinary
>> business transactions more difficult, due to mutual paranoia. So, as in
so
>> much else, we strike a balance.
>>
>That is why the research finding is interesting. It is counter intuitive.
What intuitions of yours does it run counter to?
>
>As far as I can see there are some people who look as dishonest as they
>are - some don't. My hypothesis, based on this finding, is that psychopaths
>probably don't look dishonest, whilst normal people who try to be con men
>do - this echoes some of the discussion we had on psychopathy a little
while
>ago.
Do you think that cheaters and cooperators are discrete groups or parts of a
continuum?
Regards,
Philip.
Philip Preston
ISTM these findings have no bearing on people who are well known. If
someone's face is well known to you, you will tend to recognise it whether
they are a cheater or not.
> Do they manage to conceal these clues or
>are there only a few human minds capable of picking up these subtle visual
>cues?
We don't know what the cues are, only what their effect is. Our only means
of knowing we are picking up on them is to experience the effect in
circumstances where we can be sure it is not authentic. I doubt whether
such circumstances arise very often outside the experimental situation.
>
>On the other hand, is it simply that cheaters make better politicians
>because they are more easily recognised - akin to the principle that any
>publicity is good publicity?
Or perhaps one of the qualities that makes for a more successful politician
also makes for a more successful cheater. Presumably it would also make for
a more successful salesman. Perhaps it is not just coincidence that this too
is a profession that is often perceived as having a higher than average
proportion of cheaters.
>
>This result does reinforce my belief that I ought to take my intuitions as
>to people's character seriously.
In another post you say you find it counter intuitive. If you believe the
result surely it would be more sensible to disregard your evidently
erroneous intuitions?
Regards,
Philip.
Lance Lachenicht
Lance Lachenicht, PhD
Lache...@nu.ac.za
Lanc...@Worldonline.co.za
>>> Rick White<kyk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Canadian (who lives in Japan) sees topic, notices all those Japanese names,
and the red flags go up!
Some questions:
1. Is this a Japan published journal?
2. Were the test subjects Japanese?
3. If yes to either of the above, how did the researchers shift for cultural
differences?
I have several concerns, including:
Japanese "research" generally sucks except at the highest levels (there's a
reason why almost no westerners come here to attend university).
The Japanese are notoriously bad at evaluating themselves (well, what
culture isn't?).
The Japanese tend to believe whatever those in authority/in the know/etc.
tell them. By my (Canadian) standards, they're all suckers. By an American's
standards, I'm sure us government-loving Canadians are suckers.
Anyway, you probably get my general drift. I believe *I* can spot a con man.
Don't we all?
Rick
____________
Reply:
Hi Rick -
For what it is worth, I have been thinking about the above study. I think
there may indeed be a Japanese connection.
We have known for some time, from the work of Paul Ekman, that a
person's face does give off cues about intentions that can be picked up
by a perceptive observer. Ekman claims that these cues are "micro-
expressions" that flit across the face very fast, but which can be picked
up by high speed cameras. He has also shown that women are somewhat
better than men at picking them up, and that some trained professionals
are better than average at picking them up, also. So we already have
evidence that intentions to be dishonest, etc., can be perceived by
perceptive persons on most people's faces (I won't claim that it is always
possible with psychopaths).
There are also fairly subtle cues about liking and disliking that are known
to be visible on a person's face. For example, the well known effect of
slightly enlarged pupils conveying liking. These cues are also a kind of
facial expression, but an involuntary kind.
The difference between Ekman's studies and the abstracted study lies in
its claim that the differences between honest faces and cheater's faces
lies in physiognomy. So it is not a matter of expression but of facial
structure. Now as most people know, there was a huge effort to identify
"criminal faces" in the later nineteenth century (Lombroso?), and that work has very
largely been discredited. One simple difficulty with the idea is that such a
classification presumes that some people are always honest, and some
people are always dishonest, whereas the truth obviously lies in a subtle
range of propensities. And the nineteenth century did tend to pick on ugly
people, and people whose faces showed the effects of hard living
conditions, as "obviously criminal" types. So it does seem that we see
something of a revival of that discredited tradition in the abstracted
research work. Still, the abstract gives no details of what they actually
did, or even of what facial (body language?) cues or features the
subjects were really paying attention to.
So let's for the moment pretend that what the Ss were picking up were
not facial features (a very troubling hypothesis, for it will lead to all sorts
of innocent people being accused of crime because they have the wrong
faces) but micro expressions and perhaps subtle facial cues and body
postures.
Right, the question of interest, then, is why don't most people pay
attention to such information all the time - since as Ekman and others
have shown, it is nearly always there to be observed by the attentive?
Here's the Japanese connection, for the Japanese are much concerned
with politeness. It seems to me that there are quite powerful counter
forces in social life to observing and acting on such facial cues. Suppose
you ask X for some service Y, and X doesn't like you, and refuses by
telling a lie. If you pay attention and know that he is lying, how have you
benefitted? You still don't get the service Y, and you have a fight with X,
and go away feeling bad about yourself and about X. Further you have
damaged your own social standing by engaging in such unsocialised
behaviour. Suppose, however, that you accept X's lie -- then you are no
worse off with respect to the service Y, but you can go away still
maintaining some kind of relationship with X, and feeling better about
yourself, and keeping your reputation for civilized behaviour intact. In
Japan and in China, they refer to such efforts to maintain a social front
"keeping a person's face". Well, face seems to me quite a powerful reason
not to pay too close attention to cues indicating lies and possible cheats.
One really needs a kind of two pronged reaction to lies and potential
cheats in social life: a degree of wariness, and a need to keep the surface
of social life smooth. Hence, the kind of "intuition" that women report
may be ideal. It permits them to be vaguely wary about potential cheats
and liars without being able to point to specific evidence of a lie (hence
the social surface and face is preserved). The wariness protects them
against being harmed, and keeping the other person's face permits the
course of social interaction to proceed smoothly.
There, that is my interpretation of the reasons for the sorts of findings
that the abstract is reporting.
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
> .
>
> One really needs a kind of two pronged reaction to lies and potential
> cheats in social life: a degree of wariness, and a need to keep the
surface
> of social life smooth. Hence, the kind of "intuition" that women report
> may be ideal. It permits them to be vaguely wary about potential cheats
> and liars without being able to point to specific evidence of a lie (hence
> the social surface and face is preserved). The wariness protects them
> against being harmed, and keeping the other person's face permits the
> course of social interaction to proceed smoothly.
>
where it is found. I'm not at all sure about intuition only being 'reported'
by women - I am happy to report that I feel intuition regarding people and,
after making the mistake years ago of acting against it [on suprious
rational grounds], make use of what I feel in dealing with people. It is
useful and paying attention to it makes it even easier to feel.