Tactics

Psychology presumptions

A few psychologists think they are clever by claiming some people are dumb stupid human beings with irrational traits. In the era before self-driving cars, taxi drivers exhibited some odd behaviour. During the rainy days, some would quit work early. The rain brought plenty of customers in quick succession. Now, some would indeed capitalise on this and work all day making good money. The idiots would stop as soon as they earnt their normal daily target. But are they idiots? They may welcome those raining days as ones where they get to go home early and spend their afternoon under the covers with their partner. Maybe they could do a full day in the rain and have a sunny day off. Maybe the rain brings more jams and unpleasant driving conditions. Maybe we don’t want to sit about waiting for the heavens to open. Not everyone wants more money, not everyone cares about efficiency.

People selling dreams, selling houses are notoriously good at presenting a false image. Some have been know to show the property when it is a glorious sunny day and at a time when there is less traffic building up on the road outside. If you do not care about your credibility, if you care nothing for being genuine then persuade, prod, coax at will. We can get people to do what we want by ignoring what they want. We know best, they are impressionable. I take all this back if a first aid kit is made in such a way that mistakes are avoided, and it does the job super well. The design guides us. That is all fine but ulterior motives are for skunks. People find ingenious uses for little-by-little coaxing to make the world glide more effortlessly. Psychological tricks get adopted by greater numbers until there is a backlash. I am one of the many that object at the outset and dismayed by those that get carried along without making a fuss. Small forces add up to a large muscle working against the individual who wants to be freer.

What is the most common mistake amateur psychologists make? They make one observation and read too much into it. One observation is not a lot. Seeing someone do a similar thing twice gives you a 50/50 chance of being right. Three times and you can put money on it. Someone arrived on holiday with a bruised black eye. Apparently, they fell over a pushchair. We take their word for it. A few days later their partner stood up and apologised for their regular lateness and made a point of saying that it was their fault and not their partners. Now we are 50/50 that a punch was thrown. Then there was a third piece of evidence. On the last day, the victim stumbled over to us and said “Jason, is not so bad really”. Now I am beyond certain. Make the initial observation, gather more and more evidence, but keep your mouth shut until you have at least 3 items that concur with your suspicion.

Evidence is your saviour. What evidence have you got? Have you checked to make sure what they are saying is true? Evidence is not to be sought to confirm a belief, a belief that you have already decided upon. Evidence must be considered that runs counter to that belief. Due diligence, check with the person involved first to verify the claims. Due diligence saves a fortune in time and embarrassment. An assumption might be right, but it is not evidence.

A knife can be used for cooking or stabbing someone. For good or bad. Psychology can be used to help someone or to manipulate and take advantage of them. You can make someone seem crazy and unsure of themselves. You can make them doubt their reality. That is using a knife to stab. You can make someone feel crazy for not trying, not giving something a go. You can heal with the same psychology tool. Look at the intentions. The intentions are what matters. Even if someone is rather clumsy with that knife, they may have meant to do good. They may have been clumsy but wanted to cook you a good meal in effect. All psychological ploys can be used to good or bad effect depending on the intentions of those deploying them.

A swindler, a hustler, a chancer, swindles, hustles, and chances by emulating someone genuine and decent. We learn to avoid bad types by examining people’s traits. However, a good person will behave in a very similar fashion to a cheater, because the cheater is trying to copy a good person in all bar intent. Imagine you have never been abroad, and someone offers you the chance to go exploring somewhere far flung and amazing. This would seem excessive and over indulgent to you. The offer chimes with warning signs that you have read about. You have not been abroad, but the person has been abroad more times than you have had hot dinners. It is clumsy. They have not thought about it much from your point of view. From the perspective of the person making the offer, a marvellous trip abroad is not a big deal. They are accustomed to widespread travel whilst you are not. It is one piece of evidence, not enough to make any fair judgements. It is simply a kind offer which you reject because of your amateurishness in psychology. Psychology is relative. It relative to the person and their circumstances.

You obey an instruction to write a 1000-word essay on the qualities and uses of a vegetable. You were allowed to choose any vegetable to write about. You select tomato. You write with prowess and precision. Your essay is detailed and worthy of a good mark. The invigilator assesses it for rigour and accuracy. Not only do you receive a score of zero, but no explanation is given for why you are given zero. You recheck what you submitted and fail to understand what is wrong. Psychology is very much like this. We make assertions, we come to conclusions and have great cause to think we are right. A tomato is classified as a fruit. We got the base premise wrong. We think we understand someone as we look at what we are presented with but fail to spot the base premise upon which we have made all our assertions.