Denialism Blog

Author: denialism_bv2x6a

  • Intervention Denial

    Here’s a fun one from the archives–Modern Drunkard Magazine’s advice on how to beat an intervention. It includes this gem:

    Counter Attack
    Now that you’ve blunted their savage assault, it’s high time to launch your own vengeful attack. The only people bold enough to conduct an intervention are those who consider themselves very close to you, so you most likely will know more than a little about their habits. And everyone, even Mother Theresa, has bad habits. Attack these flaws with a strident, yet deeply concerned tone.

  • Fraud, Debt Levels & Educational Attainment

    I’m continuing to bore you with the Federal Trade Commission’s report on Consumer Fraud in the United States.

    Would it be surprising to hear that individuals with higher levels of debt are more likely to be victims of fraud?

    i-2d23c762efe12d719990eab914d1ee92-debtlevel.jpg

    Yes, people in debt can be desperate, and thus be more likely to fall for scams, but there is another reason–people in debt are highly targeted by listbrokers (companies that sell lists of consumers). DirectMag’s Listfinder has over 400 lists of debtors for sale. Scammers can buy these lists and target these populations for their frauds.

    i-59ca704dadfa83c72d72c669e012dee8-debtads.jpg

    The good news is that, generally, educational attainment reduces the risk of falling victim to a consumer scam, but not by much.

    i-d191d6fabbca2872e2559b9b32848542-education.jpg

    Related post: Could Scientific Thinking Help Curb Consumer Fraud?

  • Could Scientific Thinking Help Curb Consumer Fraud?

    The Federal Trade Commission just released their second report on Consumer Fraud in the United States. Since it is full of interesting information, I’m going to do several posts on the Commission’s findings.

    First a quick notes about methods: this report presents findings from 3,888 telephonic interviews of Spanish and English speaking adults. The Commission oversampled to ensure that several minority groups were strongly represented, because it is believed that inadequate attention is being paid in particular to scams against Latinos with limited English skills.

    Despite the limitations of telephonic surveys, I think that these studies are essential, because several biases operate to make individuals not take consumer protection issues seriously. There is optimism bias, but there is also a general dismissiveness of these problems. I frequently hear individuals deny that there is a problem with a certain practice, because it doesn’t affect them. When one considers consumer protection seriously, one has to consider how framing, limited attention, differences in education, limited language skills, age, and gullibility may make all of us likely to fall victim to a scam at one time or another.

    So, I doubt many people who read Scienceblogs buy scam weight loss products. You know something about science, so claims that you can lose weight by eating everything in sight are probably suspect, but you also are probably more skeptical of claims of product efficacy. Now, would you be surprised to learn that 4.8 million Americans reported falling victim to 8.3 million incidents of weight-loss product frauds?

    i-4e56871660839356397db4cc0efe23cf-weightloss.jpg

    Now, what’s shocking is that because people generally don’t like to admit that they have been swindled, and because the Commission’s definition of weight loss fraud is so narrow (“only those who indicated either that they lost only a little of the weight they had expected to lose or that they did not lose any weight were counted as victims of weight-loss fraud”), the numbers of victims and incidents are probably much higher.

    There are many different approaches to dealing with consumer fraud. One can bring lawsuits, the government can prosecute scammers, industries can initiate self-regulatory programs, and there’s always consumer education. These approaches all have strengths and weaknesses. But I wonder whether general science education could help–whether teaching individuals to be more skeptical of claims and evidence–could curb fraud. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have the data to tell. But in the next few posts, I am going to talk about some of the trends we can see in fraud, and what these mean for consumers.

  • Who's Nuttier: Apple Fans or Ron Paul Fans?

    Kevin Poulsen of Threat Level considers who’s nuttier: Apple fans or Ron Paul fans? Complete with obfuscation, lying, and even fake posts on election sites. (Full disclosure: I am an Apple fan.)

  • Read this Post! WSJ on Subliminal Advertising

    Cynthia Crossen writes in today’s Journal about subliminal advertising:

    At a New York press conference 50 years ago, a market researcher, James Vicary, announced he had invented a way to make people buy things whether they wanted them or not. It was called subliminal advertising.

    He had tested the process at a New Jersey movie theater, he said, where he had flashed the words “Eat Popcorn” or “Coca-Cola” on the screen every five seconds as the films played. The words came and went so fast — in three-thousandths of a second — that the audience didn’t know they’d seen them. Yet sales of popcorn and Coke increased significantly.

    While this caused some hysteria and promises by networks to not engage in subliminal advertising, eventually testing undermined Vicary’s claims of efficacy:

    …People began trying to replicate Mr. Vicary’s experiment.

    The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. flashed the message “Telephone now” 352 times on a 30-minute program. Of the more than 500 viewers who responded to a follow-up survey, 51% said they felt compelled to “do something” after watching the show. Many said they felt like having something to eat or drink. Only one said she felt like making a phone call.

    In another test in San Francisco, 150 viewers, most of them television and radio broadcasters, watched a 25-minute film with an advertising message flashed every five seconds. The viewers then got a ballot with nine product names from which to identify the advertiser. Only 14 people chose the right name, a soft drink. More than twice as many chose a brand of chewing gum.

    The Federal Communications Commission ordered Mr. Vicary to demonstrate his device in Washington before a panel of government officials. The message “Eat Popcorn” was transmitted during an episode of “The Grey Ghost.” Sen. Charles E. Potter (R., Mich.) was heard saying to a colleague, “I think I want a hot dog.”

    The advertising industry’s trade publication, Printer’s Ink, observed, “Having gone to see something that is not supposed to be seen, and having not seen it, as forecast, the FCC and Congress seemed satisfied.”

    Subliminal ads, supporters assured people, were strictly “reminder” ads. “They might move you to do something you like doing, but they’ll never make a Democrat out of a solid Republican, and they’ll never make a Scotch drinker out of a teetotaler,” one advocate told Gay Talese of the New York Times.

    In 1962, Mr. Vicary, in an interview, admitted that he had fabricated the results of the popcorn test to drum up business for his market-research firm. Subliminal ads were tossed into the invention junkyard.

    “All I accomplished,” he said, “was to put a new word into common usage.”

  • What Did You Do to Celebrate Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week?

    i-365b03ff3bb79254f2c14f86bf6b887b-42.jpg

    Denialism blog has failed you. We totally missed Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Would anyone like to share how they recognized this event?

  • Why Do-Not-Call Will Lead to Do-Not-Mail

    In today’s Wall Street Journal, Jennifer Levitz and Kelly Greene report on lead generation firms (also known as list brokers), companies that sell databases of consumer information to businesses for marketing purposes:

    Older Americans around the country are getting duped by a seemingly innocuous tactic that can expose them to hard-sell pitches from the insurance industry.

    The technique is centered on a marketing tool called the lead card, and it became popular after the federal government created its Do Not Call Registry in 2003 to shield consumers from unwanted solicitors. Sent through the mail, the lead card invites the recipient to mail off an enclosed reply for free information about, say, estate planning.

    But the cards fail to warn that by sending off replies, recipients are giving up their right to avoid telephone solicitations from the sender — even if their phone numbers are on the Do Not Call list.

    And guess who calls? Scammers:

    State regulators say insurers are using the cards to peddle investments unsuitable for seniors, including so-called living trusts that may provide no benefit and annuities that come with steep surrender charges and lengthy payout deferrals.

    A case in point is Jeanne Blom, an 81-year-old widow in Minneapolis. A retired office-building cleaner, Mrs. Blom years ago transferred the deed of her house, worth $135,000, to her son, placed his name on her checking account and made him the owner of her 1990 Buick LeSabre. The rest of her assets were valued at far less than $20,000, which under Minnesota law would allow her son to collect them without probate, according to Charles Roach, her attorney. In any case, the probate fee in her county is only $250.

    Yes, the narrowing of the phone as a vector for marketing has increased mail marketing. A few years ago, the volume of junk mail sent through USPS exceeded that of ordinary, first class mail. This year, at least a dozen states introduced do-not-mail legislation. The aggravation caused by more and more junk, combined with the frauds against a growing elderly population, will result in serious consideration of do-not-mail. All it’s going to take is a few more incidents like these:

    ‘Fear Factor’

    ChoicePoint internal emails used as evidence in the case showed it was mailing more than a million lead cards a year and charged insurers as much as $35,000 per order for the mass mailings, including one in 2003 alerting older adults to a “new” AARP study on probate taxes. The study was then actually 14 years old, was done before a change in federal probate laws and, according to AARP, no longer represented its views. In internal emails, ChoicePoint employees attributed the cards’ success in generating responses to their “fear factor” and described response rates that “tumbled” when AARP’s name was temporarily removed from mailings.

    ChoicePoint’s spokesman says the “business practice” described in the settlement began before ChoicePoint bought its lead-generator unit in 2003, and that ChoicePoint stopped using AARP references after last year’s settlement.

    AARP has a similar complaint pending against America’s Recommended Mailers and American Family Prepaid in U.S. District Court in Durham, N.C. AARP alleges that America’s Recommended Mailers uses cards that appear to come from AARP to generate leads sold to American Family and others. America’s Recommended Mailers has denied the claim. American Family said in a court filing that it bought lead cards on “good faith” belief that the cards didn’t violate laws.

    North Carolina court filings against American Family say “deceptive” mailers enabled the company’s agents to visit 2,000 North Carolina residents over age 65 in their homes in 2004 and 2005. The state says they bought $4.2 million in living trusts and millions of dollars in equity-indexed annuities that were unnecessary and unsuitable.

  • WSJ on Credit Freeze, Monitoring, Alerts

    In today’s Journal, Jane J. Kim writes very clearly about the different tools that are now available to consumers to protect themselves against identity theft. The article explains the advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Great reporting!

  • Faith Healing Trips…Funded by an Insurance Company

    John W. Miller reports in the Wall Street Journal about an unusual, insurance company funded program that brings many to Lourdes:

    In an unusual scheme, [VGZ] the Dutch company spends about $280,000 a year to fly 600 of its sickest and most disabled clients to Lourdes. The company doesn’t expect the Virgin Mary to intercede. It hopes for a different sort of miracle.

    “Lourdes leads people to compassion and friendship,” says Johan Rozendaal, a VGZ board member. “They remember what it’s like to have somebody really care about them.”

    It’s difficult to quote from this article, because it’s mainly a human interest story, and it’s quite touching. It’s about a man who was disabled in his teenage years, who dreams of regaining his vision through a trip to Lourdes, but in the end, the trip helps him face the fact that he won’t see again.

  • It's Time to Free Wireless Phones

    All that stuff that the wireless industry says about being competitive is baloney! Cell phones in the US are big and stupid, and deliberately crippled to get you to pay extra for things that are natively supported in devices, like custom ringtones. And most Americans don’t know any better because they’ve never used the higher quality phones and networks available in other countries! For a deeper dive on this, see Tim Wu’s Wireless Carterphone, but for an overview of the problems, Walt Mossberg’s column in today’s Journal explains how the industry stifles innovation. This is an area where the deck of cards could be used to protect consumers, because clearly, competition and openness would benefit the landscape: i-c2389d448fdaa3a787a1059c5a46809d-6c.jpg

    A shortsighted and often just plain stupid federal government has allowed itself to be bullied and fooled by a handful of big wireless phone operators for decades now. And the result has been a mobile phone system that is the direct opposite of the PC model. It severely limits consumer choice, stifles innovation, crushes entrepreneurship, and has made the U.S. the laughingstock of the mobile-technology world, just as the cellphone is morphing into a powerful hand-held computer.

    Whether you are a consumer, a hardware maker, a software developer or a provider of cool new services, it’s hard to make a move in the American cellphone world without the permission of the companies that own the pipes. While power in other technology sectors flows to consumers and nimble entrepreneurs, in the cellphone arena it remains squarely in the hands of the giant carriers.

    […]

    We also need much greater portability of phone hardware. Because the federal government failed to set a standard for wireless phone technology years ago, we have two major, incompatible cellphone technologies in the U.S. Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. use something called CDMA. AT&T and Deutsche Telekom AG’s T-Mobile use something called GSM. Except for a couple of oddball models, phones built for one of these technologies can’t work on the other. So that limits consumer choice and consumer power. If you want to switch from AT&T to Verizon, you have to swallow the cost of a new phone.

    But the problem is even worse. The government didn’t require the CDMA companies to include a removable account-information chip, called a SIM card, in their phones. So, unlike people with GSM phones, Sprint and Verizon customers can’t keep their phones if they switch between the two carriers, even though they use the same basic technology. And, the government allows the GSM carriers to “lock” their phones, so a SIM card from a rival carrier won’t work in them, at least for a period of time. Techies can sometimes figure out how to get around this, but average folks can’t.

    The carriers defend these restrictions partly by pointing out that they subsidize the cost of the phones in order to get you to use their networks. That’s also, they say, why they require contracts and charge early-termination fees. Without the subsidies, they say, that $99 phone might be $299, so it’s only fair to keep you from fleeing their networks, at least too quickly.

    But this whole cellphone subsidy game is an archaic remnant of the days when mobile phones were costly novelties. Today, subsidies are a trap for consumers. If subsidies were removed, along with the restrictions that flow from them, the market would quickly produce cheap phones, just as it has produced cheap, unsubsidized versions of every other digital product, from $399 computers to $79 iPods.

    The Federal Communications Commission is selling some new wireless spectrum that will supposedly lead to fewer restrictions for technology companies and consumers, but it’s far from certain that the carriers, with their legions of lobbyists and lawyers, will allow such a new day to dawn. Google Inc. is making noises about trying to bust open the cellphone prison, with new software and services, but that’s no sure bet either.