MY WORLD OF TRUTH
Monday, 30 July 2018
ARE FIRST IMPRESSION REALLY ACCURATE?
Fictional stories are replete with villains and heroes with an almost magical ability to discern other people’s characters – think Hannibal Lecter or Sherlock Holmes. In real life, too, many people (including certain world leaders) seem to think they have this skill. Question-and-answer sites like Quora are filled with posts like: “I can read people’s personalities and emotions like a book. Is this normal?
But do any of us really have an exceptional skill for judging other people’s personalities?
Psychologists call such people – or the idea of them – “good judges”. And for more than a century, they have been trying to answer the question of whether these good judges really exist.
Until recently, the conclusion was that the concept is essentially a myth. Most of us are pretty gifted at determining each other’s characters, the evidence suggested. But there is barely any variation in the skill from one person to another.
However, an intriguing new paper has forced a rethink by providing new, compelling evidence that good judges do exist after all. But their skill only becomes apparent when they are reading expressive people who reveal honest cues to their characters. “Simply put,” write Katherine Rogers at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and Jeremy Biesanz at the University of British Columbia, “reports highlighting the demise or irrelevance of the good judge may have been greatly exaggerated.”
One of the first attempts to identify good judgeswas published by US psychologist Henry F Adams in 1927. He asked eight teams of 10 young women, who knew each other well, to rate each other’s personalities. He also requested that they rate their own. He averaged the ratings each volunteer received from the others to obtain their ‘true’ personality – then he crunched the numbers to see if some individuals had an unusual ability to perceive character accurately, other people’s or their own.
Good judges tend to be touchy, quick of temper, glum and moody – Henry F Adams
What he found was that being a good judge of other people didn’t necessarily make you a fun person to be with. Though mentally quick and agile, he said they tend “to be touchy, quick of temper, glum and moody, and lacking in courage”. Adams’ theory was that, paradoxically, good judges of others are egocentric: they only see other people as tools for their own ends. (Those women who were good judges of themselves, by contrast, he considered “tactful, polite and popular” and more interested in how they could be of service to others.)
But by the 1950s, the concept of the good judge was beginning to look shaky. First came a devastating critique of the methods used by James and others to identify good judges. Then data was published suggesting that the superior abilities of supposed good judges failed to transfer from one situation to another. Over the ensuing decades, further attempts to demonstrate the existence of good judges were inconsistent at best.
This is where Rogers and Biesanz come in. They think there are two key reasons for the flaky evidence for good judges. First, researchers have been inconsistent in what they mean by a good judge. Sometimes they’ve meant the ability to read personality, but other times they’ve looked at something like reading emotions or spotting lies, which is significant because there’s evidence these are distinct skills. Second, researchers have failed to take into account the part played by the person whose personality is being read.
The pair’s revelation is that there are not only good judges, but also “good targets” – people who make relevant and useful cues to their personality available. The abilities of the good judge will only manifest when reading good targets. “Much the same way a new calculus book on Amazon that does not make sample content available online will not be understood and evaluated any better by a calculus teacher than a student struggling with arithmetic, a calculus book with chapters provided online will be understood exponentially better by a calculus teacher than the same arithmetic student”, they write.
To test their argument, Rogers and Biesanz recruited thousands of college students to either chat to an unfamiliar person for three minutes or watch a video of someone they didn’t know for three minutes, and then to rate that person’s personality. The students’ personality estimates were then compared to the target persons' “true personality” based on their own self-description and ratings given by a friend or relative who knew them well.
Crucially, as well as analysing the data to see if some participants were exceptionally accurate at judging other people’s personalities, Rogers and Biesanz also categorised those having their personality scrutinised as either good or bad targets (based on how accurately, on average, the participants were able to judge them).
The data showed that there were good judges – a minority of participants who were significantly better than average at accurately judging the personalities of others. But it also showed that this was only true in the context of judging good targets.
The ability to somewhat magically discern the personality of others is not supported here – Katherine Rogers and Jeremy Biesanz
“We found consistent, clear and strong evidence that the good judge does exist”, Rogers and Biesanz concluded. But their key finding that this skill only applies when judging certain open individuals means that “the ability to somewhat magically discern the personality of others, as displayed in characters like Sherlock Holmes or The Mentalist, is not supported here.”
By comparing good judges’ performance in live interactions and videos, the researchers also were able to consider whether the good judges’ skill lies purely in detecting revealing cues or in influencing the target to reveal those cues. Here the results were equivocal – mostly, the skill seems to be in reading cues, although performance was modestly higher in live interactions, suggesting also some part played by the ability to extract those cues. At least for short interactions, then, the good judges’ “primary tool is the ability to appropriately detect and utilise information provided by the good target”, they said.
What’s exciting about these new findings is that we now know that good judges probably do exist and how to better identify them (they need to be tested with “good targets”). This means that more investigations can be opened up into how they do it, what kind of people they are – and whether their skills can be taught.
Friday, 27 July 2018
WHAT IS 5G AND WHAT WILL IT MEAN FOR YOU ?
GETTY IMAGES
Superfast "fifth generation 5G" mobile internet could be launched as early as next year in some countries, promising download speeds 10 to 20 times faster than we have now.
But what difference will it really make to our lives? Will we need new phones? And will it solve the "notspot" issue for people in remote areas?
In the first of a five-part series examining the impact 5G could have around the world, Technology of Business tackles the basic questions.
What is 5G exactly?
It's the next - fifth-generation of mobile internet connectivity promising much faster data download and upload speeds, wider coverage and more stable connections.
It's all about making better use of the radio spectrum and enabling far more devices to access the mobile internet at the same time.
What will it enable us to do?
"Whatever we do now with our smartphones we'll be able to do faster and better," says Ian Fogg from OpenSignal, a mobile data analytics company.
"Think of smart glasses featuring augmented reality, mobile virtual reality, much higher quality video, the internet of things making cities smarter.
"But what's really exciting is all the new services that will be built that we can't foresee."
GETTY IMAGES
Imagine swarms of drones co-operating to carry out search and rescue missions, fire assessments and traffic monitoring, all communicating wirelessly with each other and ground base stations over 5G networks.
Similarly, many think 5G will be crucial for autonomous vehicles to communicate with each other and read live map and traffic data.
How does it work?
There are a number of new technologies likely to be applied - but standards haven't been hammered out yet for all 5G protocols. Higher-frequency bands - 3.5GHz (gigahertz) to 26GHz and beyond - have a lot of capacity but their shorter wavelengths mean their range is lower - they're more easily blocked by physical objects.
So we may see clusters of smaller phone masts closer to the ground transmitting so-called "millimetre waves" between much higher numbers of transmitters and receivers. This will enable higher density of usage. But it's expensive and telecoms companies are not wholly committed yet.
Is it very different to 4G?
Yes, it's a brand new radio technology, but you might not notice vastly higher speeds at first because 5G is likely to be used by network operators initially as a way to boost capacity on existing 4G (LTE - Long-Term Evolution) networks, to ensure a more consistent service for customers. The speed you get will depend on which spectrum band the operator runs the 5G technology on and how much your carrier has invested in new masts and transmitters.
So how fast could it be?
The fastest current 4G mobile networks offer about 45Mbps (megabits per second) on average, although the industry is still hopeful of achieving 1Gbps (gigabit per second = 1,000Mbps). Chipmaker Qualcomm reckons 5G could achieve browsing and download speeds about 10 to 20 times faster in real-world (as opposed to laboratory) conditions.
GETTY IMAGES
Imagine being able to download a high-definition film in a minute or so.
This is for 5G networks built alongside existing 4G LTE networks. Standalone 5G networks, on the other hand, operating within very high frequencies (30GHz say) could easily achieve gigbabit-plus browsing speeds as standard. But these aren't likely to come in until a few years later.
Why do we need it?
The world is going mobile and we're consuming more data every year, particularly as the popularity of video and music streaming increases. Existing spectrum bands are becoming congested, leading to breakdowns in service, particularly when lots of people in the same area are trying to access online mobile services at the same time. 5G is much better at handling thousands of devices simultaneously, from mobiles to equipment sensors, video cameras to smart street lights.
When is it coming?
Most countries are unlikely to launch 5G services before 2020, but Qatar's Ooredoo says it has already launch a commercial service, while South Korea is aiming to launch next year, with its three largest network operators agreeing to kick off at the same time. China is also racing to launch services in 2019.
GETTY IMAGES
Meanwhile, regulators around the world have been busy auctioning off spectrum to telecoms companies, who've been experimenting with mobile phone makers on new services.
Will I need a new phone?
Yes, I'm afraid so. But when 4G was introduced in 2009/10, compatible smart phones came onto the market before the infrastructure had been rolled out fully, leading to some frustration amongst consumers who felt they were paying more in subscriptions for a patchy service.
GETTY IMAGES
This time, says Ian Fogg, phone makers are unlikely to make the same mistake, launching 5G handsets only when the new networks are ready, probably towards the end of 2019. These next generation phones will be able to switch seamlessly between 4G and 5G networks for a more stable service.
Will it mean the end of fixed line services?
In a word, no. Telecoms companies have invested too much in fibre optic and copper wire fixed line broadband to give those up in a hurry. Domestic and office broadband services will be primarily fixed line for many years to come, although so-called fixed wireless access will be made available in tandem.
However good wireless connectivity becomes, many prefer the stability and certainty of physical wires.
Think of 5G mobile as a complementary service for when we're out and about, interacting with the world around us. It will also facilitate the much-heralded "internet of things".
Will it work in rural areas?
Lack of signal and low data speeds in rural areas is a common complaint in the UK and many other countries. But 5G won't necessarily address this issue as it will operate on high-frequency bands - to start with at least - that have a lot of capacity but cover shorter distances. 5G will primarily be an urban service for densely populated areas.
GETTY IMAGES
Lower-frequency bands (600-800Mhz typically) are better over longer distances, so network operators will concentrate on improving their 4G LTE coverage in parallel with 5G roll-out.
But commercial reality means that for some people in very remote areas, connectivity will still be patchy at best without government subsidy making it worthwhile for network operators to go to these places.
WHY SO MANY PEOPLE FALL FOR SCAMS
If you have a mailbox, you probably get junk mail. If you have an email account, you probably get spam. If you have a phone, you probably get robocalls.
Unwanted messages and solicitations bombard us on a regular basis. Most of us hit ignore or delete or toss junk mail in the rubbish knowing that these messages and solicitations are most likely so-called mass-market scams. Others aren’t so lucky.
Scams cost individuals, organisations and governments trillions of dollars each year in estimated losses
Scams cost individuals, organisations and governments trillions of dollars each year in estimated losses, and many victims endure depression and ill health. There is no other crime, in fact, that affects so many people from almost all ages, backgrounds and geographical locations.
But why do people fall prey to these scams? My colleagues and I set out to answer this question. Some of our findings are in line with other research, but others challenge common assumptions about fraud.
Scams on the rise
Sweepstakes, lottery and other mass-market scams have become surprisingly common in recent years.
The Better Business Bureau reported approximately 500,000 complaints related to just sweepstake and lottery scams over the past three years, with losses of almost $350 million.
In the past, scams like these were perpetrated by relatively small local players and often done face-to-face, perhaps at an investment seminar for a bogus real estate opportunity.
Scams still happen the old-fashioned way, but today many more are being coordinated by transnational teams, including by groups in Jamaica, Costa Rica, Canada and Nigeria.
In recent years, fraud has grown into a pervasive global criminal activity as technology has lowered its cost while simultaneously making it easier than ever to reach millions of consumers instantly.
It is also much harder to catch and prosecute these criminals. For example, a robocall may appear on your caller ID as if it’s coming from your area code but in fact it’s originating in India.
Why people get taken for a ride
In order to study consumer susceptibility to mass-market scams, my co-authors and I reviewed 25 “successful” mass-market scam solicitations, obtained from the Los Angeles Postal Inspector’s office, in search for common themes.
For example, many of them included some type of familiar brand name, like Marriott or Costco, to increase their credibility and “authority.” Scammers frequently use persuasion techniques like pretending to be a legitimate business and using local area codes to foster familiarity. Or they make time-sensitive claims to increase motivation. Some of the letters we reviewed were quite colourful and included images of money or prizes and past “winners.” Others were much more businesslike and included legal-sounding text, to also create an aura of legitimacy.
We then crafted a prototype one-page solicitation letter that informed consumers they were “already a winner” and listed an “activation number” they would need to contact to claim their prize. We created four versions, which we assigned at random, intended to either manipulate authority (“We obtained your name from Target”) or pressure (“Act by June 30th”) to determine what persuasion factors motivated consumers more to respond.
The study was designed to replicate real scenarios – although participants knew they were part of an experiment – and examine factors that we suspected increased risk, such as comfort with math and numbers, loneliness and less income.
In our first experiment, we asked 211 participants to indicate their willingness to contact the activation number on the letter. They were then asked to rate the benefits and risks of responding to the letter on a 10-point scale and fill out a survey intended to identify their level of numeracy, social isolation, demographics and financial status.
The consumers who would have responded to this solicitation tended to have fewer years of education and be younger
We found that 48% of participants indicated some willingness to contact the number regardless of which type of letter they received. The consumers who indicated they would have responded to this solicitation tended to have fewer years of education and be younger. These participants also tended to rate the risks of contact as low and the benefits as high.
In a second experiment involving 291 individuals, we used the letters from the first one but added an activation fee to half of them. That is, some participants were informed that to “activate” their winnings they had to pay a $5 fee, while others were told it was $100. The rest saw no change from the previous experiment, and all other aspects of the design were identical except for a few additional survey questions related to participants’ financial situations.
We hypothesised that individuals who were willing to call and pay $100 would mean they’re especially vulnerable to this type of scam.
The interested consumers in both experiments were exactly the same – those who saw the potential for high benefits as outweighing the risks
Even with the activation fee, 25% of our sample indicated some willingness to contact the number provided – including more than a fifth of those told it would cost $100.
Similar to the first experiment, individuals who rated the solicitation as having high benefits were more likely to signal intention to contact. We thought this experiment would help us identify some special vulnerable subtype, like the elderly, but instead, the interested consumers in both experiments were exactly the same – those who saw the potential for high benefits as outweighing the risks. There were no significant differences based on age, gender or other demographics we looked at.
Even though about 60% identified the solicitations as likely a scam, they also still viewed the opportunity as potentially beneficial. In some ways these advance fee scams may act as unofficial lotteries – a low cost of entry and a high chance of failure. While consumers are wary, they don’t completely write off the possibility of a big payoff, and some clearly are willing to undertake the risk.
Unfortunately, consumers overestimate their ability to back out if the offer turns out to be a scam
Unfortunately, consumers overestimate their ability to back out if the offer turns out to be a scam. Once potential “suckers” are identified by responding to an actual solicitation over the phone call or by clicking on a fraudulent ad, they may be relentlessly targeted by phone, email and mail.
What to do about scams?
For many, solicitations via junk mail, spam email and robocalls are just incredibly annoying. But for some, they’re more than just a nuisance, they’re a trap.
To best protect yourself from being targeted, you need to be careful and use resources to help avoid scams. There are some services and appsintended to assist in screening calls and preventing identify theft. And some telephone companies allow you to opt in to such services. And more consumer education on the dangers of scams would help.
It is also important to resist clicking and responding to suspicious material in any way. Consumers who quickly identify a solicitation as a risk and dispose of it without wasting time are less vulnerable.
Given that the perception of benefits and risks were the most important factors in intention to comply, consumers should only focus on the risk and avoid getting sucked in by the potential benefits.
NINE FILMS TO WATCH IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST
