In the previous two posts, I described strategies or behaviors used by con artists and social manipulators to gain someone's confidence or to control other people. These are techniques described in greater detail by Gavin De Becker in his book, The Gift of Fear. This is a book I frequently recommend to young women...not to make them overly fearful or suspicious, but to encourage them to trust their instincts when dealing with other people.
In this post, I finish up with the descriptions of these techniques (see previous two posts for the others).
Typecasting
In this strategy, the con artist labels a woman or other victim in a slightly critical way: snob, stuck-up, not a team player, lone wolf, etc. The idea is that the victim will then be compelled to disprove this charge. On the street, a stranger might use this method to get a woman to talk to him by accusing her of being a "snob" or something similarly negative. (as I write this, I wonder how many men have ever had this particular experience?). The defense in that situation is to simply walk away. If someone at work does this, the solution may be a bit more complicated (see previous posts).
Loan Sharking
The Loan Shark does you a favor, not because he's a nice guy, but because he wants you in his debt. Then, when he asks you for something later, you will find it more difficult to refuse. There are some kindly strangers out there who will offer their help; the problem is those people who are not so kindly. Again, you can distinguish between the two by how they respond to refusal. The social manipulator will react badly to your refusal to accept his "favor".
Promises, Promises
In this strategy, the con artist offers an unsolicited promise. "If you listen to my ideas, I promise I'll leave you alone." "If you'll let me into your office, I promise I'll be brief." De Becker warns that you should be suspicious of any unsolicited promise, regardless of the context. He says that a promise is not a guarantee of anything....but is instead a way to convince you of something. A promise seems to be offering something, but in reality it is not. The defense is to say to yourself that the promise is a warning sign and to carefully consider what you are being asked to do. Perhaps it will cost you only time; but perhaps it will cost you more to ignore the warning signs in other situations.
Not Taking "No" for an Answer
Have you ever had this experience? You tell someone that no, you do not need their help or advice or whatever, but they proceed to give it anyway? Of all the signs one should pay attention to, this is the one that De Becker emphasizes. He says that "no" is a "a word that must never be negotiated, because the person who chooses not to hear it is trying to control you". Criminals apparently go through a "victim selection" process involving an "interview" in which they test the victim to see if they can be controlled. One of those tests is to ignore the victim's protests to see how they react. Again, I can think of coworkers who routinely ignore me (or try to) when I've said no to something they've suggested. They may not be up to something criminal, but they are certainly trying to control me.
Well, those are a few ways to spot a con artist or social manipulator. I hope you never run into someone like this, but some of you will at some point in your career. It may be a stranger on the street or someone at work. It could be a coworker, a superior, or a subordinate who uses one or more of these techniques to control you. By being aware, we can avoid being taken in by such strategies.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
How to Spot a Con Artist: Part 2
In the last post, I began describing some of the strategies that con artists and social manipulators use to control victims. These behaviors are described in detail in Gavin De Becker's book, The Gift of Fear. I read this book many years ago and have recommended it to women ever since. In this post, I describe two more techniques used by social manipulators.
Charming Stranger
De Becker has little good to say about charm. He believes that charm is "almost always a directed instrument, which, like rapport building, has motive. To charm is to compel, to control by allure or attraction." Charming people do not all necessarily have sinister motives, but because it is a strategy used by con artists and social manipulators, it is prudent to be aware of it. De Becker particularly warns women to rebuff unwanted approaches. He specifically makes the point that women are expected to respond to any and all communications from men (and those who are not willing and compliant are viewed as being cold and uncooperative). He's mostly talking about strangers, but it's worth considering in a work situation when someone is being overly insistent.
Details, Details
Another trick that people use to try to deceive others is a simple technique, which De Becker describes as "too many details". You've probably encountered this with students or others who were trying to convince you of something. When someone is speaking the truth, they don't feel the need to elaborate, because they know what they've said is verifiable. The liar, on the other hand, may sound credible to you, but not to himself. Consequently, he keeps on talking, adding more and more details to his story. I've experienced this a number of times with certain people. If I just stare at them, without comment, their detailing gets more and more elaborate. The situations De Becker describes involve women being accosted by male strangers who throw so many details and information at them, they become confused and overwhelmed. Which is the intended outcome, of course. The defense is to simply be aware of the situation and to ask yourself why this person is offering so much information.
In the next post, I will finish up with the list of strategies used by social manipulators.
Image: Ted Bundy, www.clarkprosecutor.org
Charming Stranger
De Becker has little good to say about charm. He believes that charm is "almost always a directed instrument, which, like rapport building, has motive. To charm is to compel, to control by allure or attraction." Charming people do not all necessarily have sinister motives, but because it is a strategy used by con artists and social manipulators, it is prudent to be aware of it. De Becker particularly warns women to rebuff unwanted approaches. He specifically makes the point that women are expected to respond to any and all communications from men (and those who are not willing and compliant are viewed as being cold and uncooperative). He's mostly talking about strangers, but it's worth considering in a work situation when someone is being overly insistent. Details, Details
Another trick that people use to try to deceive others is a simple technique, which De Becker describes as "too many details". You've probably encountered this with students or others who were trying to convince you of something. When someone is speaking the truth, they don't feel the need to elaborate, because they know what they've said is verifiable. The liar, on the other hand, may sound credible to you, but not to himself. Consequently, he keeps on talking, adding more and more details to his story. I've experienced this a number of times with certain people. If I just stare at them, without comment, their detailing gets more and more elaborate. The situations De Becker describes involve women being accosted by male strangers who throw so many details and information at them, they become confused and overwhelmed. Which is the intended outcome, of course. The defense is to simply be aware of the situation and to ask yourself why this person is offering so much information.
In the next post, I will finish up with the list of strategies used by social manipulators.
Image: Ted Bundy, www.clarkprosecutor.org
Monday, June 11, 2012
How to Spot a Con Artist: Part 1
In the last post, I described a situation in which a postdoctoral scientist fabricated data, lied about his degree (didn't have one), jeopardized a major research project, and disappeared leaving the PI in a pickle. Although this event actually happened in a lab where I once worked, it is not common. Nonetheless, it's worth examining because it reveals something about how vulnerable we are to people who are unscrupulous.
I suggested that this postdoc was a con artist. He fooled everyone into thinking that he was trustworthy, hardworking, and qualified for the job he was hired to do. How do you spot someone who is skilled at social manipulation? It's not easy, as victims will probably attest. According to Gavin De Becker, a security consultant and author of the book The Gift of Fear, con artists and social manipulators use similar tactics and therefore exhibit similar behavior in their interactions with others.
Forced Teaming
De Becker uses the David Mamet film House of Games (see previous post) to discuss how con artists work and, in particular, use a behavior known as "forced teaming". Forced teaming is a strategy designed to establish a premature trust between strangers: being stuck in an elevator or waiting for a bus. The con artist uses this manipulation to create a sense of "togetherness", which is actually false because it is intentionally created by the manipulator. In House of Games, one of the cons depicted involves forced teaming: two men waiting at a Western Union office for a money order. The two commiserate over their respective predicaments involving money, and the con artist says to the other man, "Hey, if my money comes in first, I'll split it with you so you can buy your bus ticket in time; you can send the money to me later when you get your money. I'm sure you'd do the same for me." Of course, the con artist has no money order coming in, so the other man's money is the only one to arrive; he insists on giving a portion to the con artist. Note that the con artist, played by Joe Mantegna, is actually setting up his female companion, a psychologist played by Lindsay Crouse, for a bigger con by showing her some of his techniques. Here's the scene from that film:
In a work situation, a social manipulator might use phrases such as "We're some team!" or "How are we going to handle this situation?" or "I see you are in the same boat as I am; we need to work together." I can think of at least three people I have known in my career who used this manipulation to try to impose a relationship (with me) that I did not want. Now, some instances in which someone voices such statements might be totally innocent. Your gut will tell you whether they are being helpful or manipulative: if you feel uncomfortable and want to have nothing to do with them (but don't want to appear to be rude), be alert. A key test is how that person reacts to a clear refusal to follow along with a fictitious shared experience or problem. If you politely decline to play along and simply say that you are not in need of help or advice but the other person persists, even trying to make you feel guilty, then you are dealing with a manipulator.
Outside of work, I've encountered strangers (male) who tried "force-teaming" on me and then turned nasty when I politely declined their insistence that we are having a "shared experience". Women are particularly vulnerable to this strategy because we hate to be accused of being rude.
In the next post, I will continue with the warning signs of social manipulators and con artists.
I suggested that this postdoc was a con artist. He fooled everyone into thinking that he was trustworthy, hardworking, and qualified for the job he was hired to do. How do you spot someone who is skilled at social manipulation? It's not easy, as victims will probably attest. According to Gavin De Becker, a security consultant and author of the book The Gift of Fear, con artists and social manipulators use similar tactics and therefore exhibit similar behavior in their interactions with others.
Forced Teaming
De Becker uses the David Mamet film House of Games (see previous post) to discuss how con artists work and, in particular, use a behavior known as "forced teaming". Forced teaming is a strategy designed to establish a premature trust between strangers: being stuck in an elevator or waiting for a bus. The con artist uses this manipulation to create a sense of "togetherness", which is actually false because it is intentionally created by the manipulator. In House of Games, one of the cons depicted involves forced teaming: two men waiting at a Western Union office for a money order. The two commiserate over their respective predicaments involving money, and the con artist says to the other man, "Hey, if my money comes in first, I'll split it with you so you can buy your bus ticket in time; you can send the money to me later when you get your money. I'm sure you'd do the same for me." Of course, the con artist has no money order coming in, so the other man's money is the only one to arrive; he insists on giving a portion to the con artist. Note that the con artist, played by Joe Mantegna, is actually setting up his female companion, a psychologist played by Lindsay Crouse, for a bigger con by showing her some of his techniques. Here's the scene from that film:
In a work situation, a social manipulator might use phrases such as "We're some team!" or "How are we going to handle this situation?" or "I see you are in the same boat as I am; we need to work together." I can think of at least three people I have known in my career who used this manipulation to try to impose a relationship (with me) that I did not want. Now, some instances in which someone voices such statements might be totally innocent. Your gut will tell you whether they are being helpful or manipulative: if you feel uncomfortable and want to have nothing to do with them (but don't want to appear to be rude), be alert. A key test is how that person reacts to a clear refusal to follow along with a fictitious shared experience or problem. If you politely decline to play along and simply say that you are not in need of help or advice but the other person persists, even trying to make you feel guilty, then you are dealing with a manipulator.
Outside of work, I've encountered strangers (male) who tried "force-teaming" on me and then turned nasty when I politely declined their insistence that we are having a "shared experience". Women are particularly vulnerable to this strategy because we hate to be accused of being rude.
In the next post, I will continue with the warning signs of social manipulators and con artists.
Monday, May 14, 2012
The PI's Nightmare
In the last post, I described a nightmare situation for any PI. A trusted postdoc has turned out to be a fraud and has skipped town after fabricating data for a major project of yours. The postdoc also turns out to have lied about his Ph.D. degree--he never received it.
At this point, you may be thinking about all the things the PI could have done to avoid landing in this situation, and I could go through these points one by one. However, at this stage in the situation, none of that is going to help. Also, one could argue that taking all possible precautions does not guarantee that such a situation will never happen. Especially if you are dealing with a real con artist.
The term, "con", comes from confidence, which is what a con artist gains from his victims and allows him to succeed. Such people are highly skilled at social manipulation and understand how to gain people's confidence. Fortunately, there are not that many con artists who end up in the field of science. However, scientists may on occasion encounter such people, either people within the field of science or people peripheral to science.
For the latter situation, there is a very interesting film called House of Games, written and directed by David Mamet. You may be more familiar with Mamet's other films, such as The Spanish Prisoner. Both films are about confidence men (and women). House of Games, however, features a female psychologist, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) who becomes the target of a group of grifters led by Mike (Joe Mantegna).
Margaret has published a successful book, which has led to professional recognition, modest fame, and a small fortune. It's this book and consequent fortune that have attracted the attention of this gang of con artists. Their leader, Mike, designs an elaborate con to ensnare Margaret and eventually relieve her of her money. They play on her professional interests and desire to find another subject to research and write about...one that may lead to another successful book.
The set-up is initiated by a young, small-time gambler, who goes to Margaret for treatment. He tells her that he owes a large sum of money and will be killed unless he pays (which he can't). Margaret decides to intervene and visits the man the gambler owes. Turns out that it's Mike, the con man. Mike agrees to forgive the young gambler's debt if Margaret agrees to accompany him to a poker game as his girlfriend and help him spot the "tells" of the other card players. Margaret immediately sees an entry into an underworld that she can exploit for her own professional goals.
Margaret falls headlong into the trap set by this gang of grifters and eventually loses a large sum of money. The con is so clever that Margaret does not realize she's been conned...at first. By chance, she discovers the ruse and proceeds to turn the tables on Mike. I won't reveal all that transpires, except to say that the film is intriguing on many levels and carefully crafted to keep you guessing until the end. It's not as well done as Mamet's later films, and one could quibble about the acting, especially Lindsay Crouse (see previous posts about female stereotypes in film).
My point in describing this little film is that it is a cautionary tale about a successful female professional who is taken in by unscrupulous people, even though she knows she's dealing with people who are basically criminals. Despite that knowledge, she's still fooled by Mike, who cleverly gains her confidence. And that's all it takes.
How likely is it that a science professional might be victimized by a con artist? Although the Mamet film is fictional, the postdoc story I described in the previous post is not. The situation I described happened to my adviser (I was one of the graduate students working on the project). I also was fooled once by a student worker who was falsifying his time sheets and forging signatures on them. Fortunately for me, the student worker's actions did not threaten my entire research program or my job. These experiences tell me that such situations are not that unusual in science, although perhaps not as prevalent as in other professions.
Credit: Still image from House of Games, Filmhaus
At this point, you may be thinking about all the things the PI could have done to avoid landing in this situation, and I could go through these points one by one. However, at this stage in the situation, none of that is going to help. Also, one could argue that taking all possible precautions does not guarantee that such a situation will never happen. Especially if you are dealing with a real con artist.
The term, "con", comes from confidence, which is what a con artist gains from his victims and allows him to succeed. Such people are highly skilled at social manipulation and understand how to gain people's confidence. Fortunately, there are not that many con artists who end up in the field of science. However, scientists may on occasion encounter such people, either people within the field of science or people peripheral to science.
Margaret has published a successful book, which has led to professional recognition, modest fame, and a small fortune. It's this book and consequent fortune that have attracted the attention of this gang of con artists. Their leader, Mike, designs an elaborate con to ensnare Margaret and eventually relieve her of her money. They play on her professional interests and desire to find another subject to research and write about...one that may lead to another successful book.
The set-up is initiated by a young, small-time gambler, who goes to Margaret for treatment. He tells her that he owes a large sum of money and will be killed unless he pays (which he can't). Margaret decides to intervene and visits the man the gambler owes. Turns out that it's Mike, the con man. Mike agrees to forgive the young gambler's debt if Margaret agrees to accompany him to a poker game as his girlfriend and help him spot the "tells" of the other card players. Margaret immediately sees an entry into an underworld that she can exploit for her own professional goals.
Margaret falls headlong into the trap set by this gang of grifters and eventually loses a large sum of money. The con is so clever that Margaret does not realize she's been conned...at first. By chance, she discovers the ruse and proceeds to turn the tables on Mike. I won't reveal all that transpires, except to say that the film is intriguing on many levels and carefully crafted to keep you guessing until the end. It's not as well done as Mamet's later films, and one could quibble about the acting, especially Lindsay Crouse (see previous posts about female stereotypes in film).
My point in describing this little film is that it is a cautionary tale about a successful female professional who is taken in by unscrupulous people, even though she knows she's dealing with people who are basically criminals. Despite that knowledge, she's still fooled by Mike, who cleverly gains her confidence. And that's all it takes.
How likely is it that a science professional might be victimized by a con artist? Although the Mamet film is fictional, the postdoc story I described in the previous post is not. The situation I described happened to my adviser (I was one of the graduate students working on the project). I also was fooled once by a student worker who was falsifying his time sheets and forging signatures on them. Fortunately for me, the student worker's actions did not threaten my entire research program or my job. These experiences tell me that such situations are not that unusual in science, although perhaps not as prevalent as in other professions.
Credit: Still image from House of Games, Filmhaus
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Catch Me If You Can
You are a PI in charge of a large project to conduct an environmental assessment of the potential impact of a large Energy Utility on an adjacent natural ecosystem. With the sizable grant awarded to you, you hire a postdoctoral researcher, technicians, and graduate students to conduct the work. It is the responsibility of the postdoc, in addition to conducting the field research in his specific area of expertise, to collate all the data from all tasks and to write the final report to the Energy Utility.
Although this postdoc is fresh out of graduate school, he is an experienced teacher and administrator who returned to graduate school to get a Ph.D. later in life. You feel very confident in his abilities, especially because of his maturity and past experience, which is a primary reason you hired him for this job. He is gregarious and well-liked by all on the research team and appears to be a diligent worker. Things seem to go well during the data acquisition phase; everyone is working hard, spending many hours in the field and laboratory. As the project is nearing the final months, the postdoc announces that he has accepted an offer to return to his previous position (in another country) but, not to worry, he's almost finished writing the report. You are not worried because you have high confidence in him and you've been working closely with the technicians and graduate students who are responsible for particular aspects of the report and have also been shown portions of the work supervised by the postdoc. As often happens in large projects, there are delays. When it becomes clear that the report cannot be finalized by the date the postdoc must leave, you acquire a no-cost extension for the project and the postdoc agrees to finish up the writing remotely.
A day or two after the postdoc's departure, you receive a message from him saying that his briefcase containing all the data files and the only copy of the draft report was stolen in the airport. He's very sorry about this, but he won't be able to meet his obligations. You are stunned and try to contact him. All your efforts to communicate fail. You try not to panic, thinking that at worst, you will just reconstruct everything from the copies of the files he left. You meet with the technicians and students and explain the situation.
Your head technician begins delving into the files and discovers some puzzling things. After several days, the technician comes to your office and tells you that he thinks the postdoc fabricated much of the data he was supposed to have collected personally. The only data he's confident of is what he and the other technicians and students collected. However, cross-checking the original datasheets from field notebooks and lab books indicates that the postdoc cooked some of the summary files (altered the data) so that everything will have to be reconstructed from the original datasheets. And the data the postdoc collected will have to be discarded and either recollected or eliminated from the report.
You begin to investigate further and discover that the postdoc never really received a Ph.D.--his graduate committee failed him when it became clear he had fabricated some of his dissertation research. The letters of reference from the adviser and other faculty to you were all forged. Because the letters were from well-respected professors at a credible university and department, you never bothered to check with the postdoc's graduate school to determine that he actually received his degree from that university....
In other words, you've been the victim of an elaborate con.
If you were the PI in this situation, what would you do? If you were one of the students or technicians and saw something that made you suspicious, would you report it to the PI? If you (PI or team member) later encountered this person at a conference or other venue, what would you do?
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Overturning the Stereotype
It's interesting to see what people submit. Some post photos of themselves at work; others at play. Some are serious and some are silly. Many show the scientists with their families. Some people noted in the description accompanying their photo that they have experienced how other people are surprised when faced with a scientist (them) who does not fit the stereotype (white, male, labcoated, nerdy).
I've also occasionally encountered people who expressed incredulity upon being told my profession. Some of these occasions were when I reentered the country and went through passport control. Because I carry an official passport (as a US government employee), I'm often asked what type of work I do for my agency. When I respond that I'm a scientist, I almost always get a double-take look from the passport officer. Sometimes, they frown and question me further about exactly what I do science-wise, clearly not believing me. I can't imagine how they think I managed to get an official US passport using false information about my government job, but that's the implication.
This third degree treatment always catches me off guard. It's intimidating being questioned like this, and I automatically begin to feel guilty under the suspicious gaze of the US Customs agent. Whatever I say sounds defensive and false. Sometimes, the frown deepens, and the agent scrutinizes my documents some more. I cringe and imagine the agent is going to next loudly announce to his supervisor and all my fellow travelers, "Hey, Joe, this lady here says she's a scientist. Could you come over here?" I briefly contemplate saying, "Yes, I'm a real scientist who studies Important Scientific Topic and I'm just returning from a trip to Very Foreign Country where I gave the keynote address at a Major Scientific Conference." However, I don't want to antagonize the agent and end up in one of those back rooms. So I just smile and confirm that what it says on my paperwork is correct.
Later, I fantasize about carrying around a copy of my doctorate diploma or my CV....to produce along with my passport and other travel papers. Or perhaps I could just whip out my iPad already linked to my professional webpage describing my scientific credentials and activities?
In the meantime, I hope the This Is What a Scientist Looks Like project will help change the public's perception of who can be a scientist.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
I'd Rather Poke a Stick in my Eye
Is there anyone out there who enjoys conference calls? Maybe it's just me, but I find conference calls frustrating, annoying, and generally a waste of time.
The call I was on today was pretty typical, with the usual array of annoyances. During this particular call there was an unusual variety of background noises: building construction sounds (jack hammers), wind blowing (someone was outside), car sounds (someone was driving and listening in), sounds of moving furniture (maybe the caller was using the time to rearrange their office?), and a generally annoying hum that came and went (could not identify the source). I suppose I should be thankful that there were not the other typical background noises one often hears: sounds of typing, eating or drinking, rattling paper or food wrappers being opened, side conversations with others in the office, ringing phones, barking dogs, and screaming kids. It's usually up to the moderator to handle those callers who violate the conference call etiquette with these obnoxious noises. However, if you are not the moderator and s/he is not handing the situation, should you speak up? Wait a bit and hope someone else will? Just grit your teeth? Hang up?
Another annoying sound one often encounters on conference calls is The Heavy Breather. This unfortunate person often has blocked sinuses and, consequently, mouth-breaths directly into the microphone. Someone will be saying, "I think we need to rewrite the section on.... 'HEAVYBREATH'....I suggest that the person who needs to take care of this is....'HEAVYBREATH' ...." Wait! What? Who? Alternatively, the person with problem sinuses will try to breath through their nose anyway, creating a high-pitched whistling noise....
Thankfully, we didn't have one of those today, but did have a different type of breathing distraction. One of the scientists on this call today was elderly and short of breath. He seemed to be having difficulty talking and sounded as if he was about to have some type of seizure. I was uncertain as to whether to ask if he was OK (potentially embarrassing) or keep quiet (potentially missing a life-threatening situation). I decided not to say anything and just listen closely for sounds of further distress. After a bit, I decided that his condition must be chronic and not immediately life-threatening (or maybe he was exercising during the call!).
Another problem, which especially bothers me, is when some people speak too softly or not directly into their mike. These people are sometimes what Seinfeld calls "low-talkers", not to be confused with the "close-talker" or the "high-talker". The low-talker speaks so softly that others have to strain to make out what they are saying. Low-talkers speak softly in person as well as on the phone, but in the latter case the listener does not have any possibility of understanding some of the conversation by lip-reading, for example. Low-talkers can often be the people who actually have something of substance to say on a call, so I want to hear them. I will usually say something like, "I didn't quite catch what you said. Could you repeat that?" If it's chronic and the low-talker is a key person on the call, I'll say, "I'm really having difficulty hearing Dr. X. Is it just my phone or are others having the same problem?" The latter may prompt the low-talker to speak up.
Another difficulty I have during conference calls, especially with a lot of participants that I don't know well or never met, is not being able to identify who is speaking. If you're mainly listening and not participating in the conversation, perhaps this is not too important. However, if someone asks you a direct question, it might be important for you to know who it is...to formulate an appropriate response. The Unknown Speaker might say, "DrDoyenne, I see that in the section you wrote for the panel summary that you failed to cite my stellar work on the topic. I wonder if you'd like to comment?" Uh oh.....just shoot me now and get it over with. I find that being unable to identify speakers is generally disconcerting and just adds to my overall discomfort with conference calls. I appreciate it when a speaker says, "This is Bob. Here's what I think about this issue..." When I've been listening to a series of unknown speakers, I feel like kissing Bob.
Perhaps the least annoying are the people on the call who never say anything. However, I'm aware of them lurking in the background. What are they thinking? Why are they not saying anything? Why are they on the call? Or did they call in, identify themselves, and then mute their phone so they could work on something else.
Hmmm. Not a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)