Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Question on "How to Cheat at Everything"
Mike Frieda

Question on "How to Cheat at Everything" - 18 views

framing heuristics cheat

started by Mike Frieda on 28 Sep 11
  • Mike Frieda
    #1 Mike Frieda on 28 Sep 11
     
    It is clear that in order to sell someone something, you must convince them of value. Simon Lovell sells illusions of grandeur by convincing people of the supposed value of his offer. This gets otherwise rational individuals to make irrational 'purchases' into Lovell's cons.
    Does Simon Lovell make use of framing techniques to con his victims, and if so, in what ways? Are these techniques similar to what we see used in the public sphere?
  • magen sanders
    #2 magen sanders on 29 Sep 11
     
    i would say yes, with every con or manipulation the con artist, depending on the audience, will use a certain frame to draw that particular "buyer" in. they will either frame the product to the consumer or they will convince the consumer that they need the product. either way the manipulation and framing is there otherwise the audience wouldnt be as easily convinced, in relation to the public sphere all i can think about is infomercials. typically the spokes person is the manipulator/con artist and the viewers are the victims. the spokes person will frame the situation to convince the consumer that it is necessary to have the item thus conning them, thats in a consumer model. in political framing politicians con, for lack of a better word, voters into thinking they are the only candidate that can fulfill what the public "needs". and when it comes to passing bills society frames them around what people want to hear and manipulate it so voters see something they agree with and arent educated on other reprocussions of that bill. Manipulation and framing techniques can be seen everywhere!!
  • Felecia Russell
    #3 Felecia Russell on 29 Sep 11
     
    I would definately say Simon uses framing techniques to con his victims because without a plan and a motvie, he would not be able to con people. It is something he practices; therefore, he influence people with subtle cues in presentation as opposed to facts or arguments. For instance, he said one of his techniques was to tell a sob story, it was neither fact nor an argument, it was pure game. These techniques are similar to the ones in public sphere, because whether it is getting someone to like the product. Consumers can make a decision based on cues in presentation that are only illusions. However, these cues are not overt, they are subtle. Essentially, it is about what people want to hear and creative thinkers, con artist, experts and politicians all use framing techniques.
  • Joshua Gray
    #4 Joshua Gray on 29 Sep 11
     
    Simon's entire con career was based off of frames and being able to tell what would work with each audience. His favorite trick was admitted to be setting a frame that he's jsut getting a drink and ends up running into him by coincidence and could use some assistance. In the public sphere you see politicians all attempting to put constituents into this illusion that they are greater than they really are and emphasis their better qualities. Obama's Hope campaign, whether it is seen negatively or not, was a frame of future greatness with President Obama leading the nation and a greater life for all.
  • Valencia Hamilto
    #5 Valencia Hamilto on 30 Sep 11
     
    Simon Lovell has different framing techniques on which he uses on different victims. He has a multiple amount of frames because some may not work on certain ones. Simon needs framing techniques so he can convince the victim to believe in his scam. Without framing techniques he would be able to complete his task successfully. These techniques are very similar to what they use in commercials on TV. In commercials they use these techniques to convince viewers that they need to buy their product or visit their company. They make you feel obligated to go or to have whatever they are advertising. They lure you in with great deals and create jingles that are constantly on your mind.
  • steve santos
    #6 steve santos on 30 Sep 11
     
    I absolutely say this framing technique has been going on for years. In the old west days of american civilization, "medicine men" would sell you concoction of a plethora of absolutely nothing significant to yield results for their claims of living forever. They would set up a public expo at a time and before hand meet with a friend who would arrive either before or after and rise to the claim of "trying it out" and then saying "I feel great. you do feel younger and stronger after drinking this!" Logistics of this method were short hand then so a man's word was his worth and people wanting to believe people can be good would buy into this illusion in good faith, other placed in the wrong people. Luring in with a scapegoat like that is no different today. Taking this innocent mind set of faith into this next example, If Beyonce says this makeup is wonderful for her, everyone who wants to be like her will more or less buy it. Same for David Beckham; he appears in GQ wearing this, this this and that, even guys would have a notion in mind that maybe its worth the added charisma you'd get to be more like him. It comes down to principle of how people carry themselves. Too optimistic and too much faith sets you up to be used by the good of people out for nothing of your well intent. They just come off as so. Too pessimistic and no one will want to be involved with you. Only so many people want to be saviors and even that role of oneself is dying off. In good faith and good mind you have to no reasonable warning signs or positive reinforcement of when to back off and when to push forward to know the set of circumstances you as the consumer desire an if they can yield from what is in front of you when you rise up to them respectively.
  • Mitchell Burris
    #7 Mitchell Burris on 30 Sep 11
     
    I loved this article and and the question. It really illuminates the way in which we are coned into buying products or, more importantly, electing politicians and legislature. I thought the way that Lovell would make people feel at ease by portraying himself as somebody who understands the victim and has common problems and interests strikingly resembles the way that many (some much more than others) of the upcoming presidential candidates attempt to make us feel like they are one of us and have similar interests and are therefore going to look out for us. The reality is of course that (with exceptions) they are nothing like us and their interests probably don't really line up with ours. It is just part of their con to win votes and get elected. The other point of note is the way that political factions, politicians, and causes try to achieve that "in-crowd" effect. A lot of people get rather smug and self satisfied when they think they are the intellectual elite and believe what they do because they are "in on it" and the others are not.

    Great thought provoking question. It's interesting to see such obvious similarities when presented with this con-man perspective.
  • Mangala Kanayson
    #8 Mangala Kanayson on 04 Dec 11
     
    No more than a parent cons a child into good behavior so Santa will bring the child gifts.
    People con each other all the time, especially on dates and in business settings. We only seem to call it a con or look at it negatively in the political arena and in the case of an obvious con artist. This is what convincing a crowd is all about. The art of persuasion is just more obvious when we can clearly see (via television) how politicians portray themselves to and address different crowds.

    An overlooked point is that politicians are responding to the people's actions. We elect the person who cons us best. At an extreme view, want to be conned, or at the very least, we do not want to think rationally about who we elect. If we didn't, we might consider researching the past political behavior of a candidate and voting record on issues that we find important.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the contemporary issues in public policy group