4 ms·

Sorry that happened to her. There's also some mental concept where people already got started or went so far, and subconsciously don't want to believe they've

Sorry that happened to her. There's also some mental concept where people already got started or went so far, and subconsciously don't want to believe they've been had, so keep going. I'm sure there's a name for it, I can't be bothered to look up. It's why romance scams are so common, and also why that McDonald's manager undressed that employee, for example. Fascinating, but sad.

puffoflogic 4y ago
It could also explain the actios of some people who are "caught" going to the hotel room of 40 year old cops pretending to be 14 year olds online, but who only "reveal" their age at the last second. But no one likes to think about this version of confirmation bias/the bias you were talking about, somehow.
rippercushions 4y ago
The McDonalds manager story in question: https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3688563&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3688563&page=1 Which would be completely unbelievable if there wasn't security footage of the whole thing!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notch656a 4y ago
  Meanwhile if an actual police officer directs a private citizen to perform this kind of search, it's not only apparently legal but approved by the medical and nursing board. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985537/gov.uscourts.azd.985537.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
  - mr-wendel 4y ago
    More on this case can be found at https://holdcbpaccountable.org/2016/08/09/cervantes-v-united-states-et-al/ https://holdcbpaccountable.org/2016/08/09/cervantes-v-united.... The real life story is pretty sickening: an ~8 hour ordeal starting with the CDP saying "we think you have drugs" and forcibly sending an 18 year old girl to the hospital for an x-ray, in handcuffs, where she is instead invasively strip searched (with the CDP and hospital staff in audience). Nothing is found so they eventually let her go. The court basically ruled that: - The CDP did its job "correctly". They just need to think you did something wrong to detain you and force you to accept medical interventions. - This was the wrong way to sue: the plaintiff must seek state-law tort action against the doctor for malpractice. Most disturbing to me is considering just is how many people were party to whole affair, and how easily a routine, but ill-fated encounter with authority can go so wrong. I can only hope that additional legal remediation brought some kind of justice and relief. Maybe this is yet another example of how contorted US law practice can be. I'm not holding my breath.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  jfc, that manager should be criminally culpable.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    If by "criminally culpable" you mean "awarded over a million dollars", then that is exactly what happened. > Summers also sued McDonald's and was awarded $1 million in punitive damages and $100,000 in compensatory damages.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      yes, awarded a million dollars for being fucking stupid.
      - loa_in_ 4y ago
        And apparently completely devoid of any idea of human decency, yes
        cookie_monsta 4y ago
        This seems a bit harsh. Nobody really says that about the participants in the Milgram experiment[1], but the psychologist in the ABC article says that this is probably why the caller targeted fast food restaurants >"Everything is by the book," he explained. "This is how you serve it. This is exactly how you do it. You follow the book — you're OK. I believe he picked fast food restaurants because he knew, once you got them away from that book, once it was something outside the manual or the procedures, they would be lost." [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        The participants in the milgram experiment are absolutely judged that way, the difference is there was no actual harm done in the experiment. This woman should be in jail, criminal negligence is a thing.
- noduerme 4y ago
  Insane and yet totally believable if you spend any time dealing with franchisees.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    What does that mean?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
robgibbons 4y ago
Sounds like the sunken cost fallacy
- silisili 4y ago
  That's what came to my mind, but it's subtly different. Sunk cost is usually seemingly rational thinking about capital invested. Whereas this is rather irrational refusal to see a problem due to potential embarrassment, usually along with some type of investment.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    Cognitive bias?
  - ghaff 4y ago
    It's more along the lines of you develop tunnel vision. You just look at the next step ahead and you never backup and ask yourself whether the whole thing makes sense. You see it with all kinds of things including solving technical and other problems. Once you've decided something is true, it's easy to dismiss all sorts of signals that maybe it isn't.
noduerme 4y ago
Speaking of McDonald's, what you're describing is the same impulse that makes me accept and consume a hamburger after I've watched numerous employees violating health codes before they hand it to me. Like, this is a major company, and I don't have enough time to question all the details...
matheusmoreira 4y ago
I think it's because way too many people don't have firm boundaries. They don't recognize unacceptable behavior and so cannot put a stop to it before they are victimized. Someone tried to scam me once by taking over the Instagram account of a hotel and baiting me with a discount. That by itself is not a problem, it could be a legit offer. Their intentions became obvious when I randomly got a message with a 2 factor code and they asked me for the number. Criminals must necessarily violate social rules in order to carry out their crimes. A robber on the street must close the distance against the victim in order to get in attack range. In my case, the unacceptable behavior was asking me about information that was not only secret but also useless to anyone but me. Recognizing these violations of social norms and enforcing firm boundaries is necessary to defend against these people. People who don't understand what a 2 factor code is will not recognize that it is unacceptable behavior for another person to ask for one and will see no problem with revealing the secret.

puffoflogic 4y ago

It could also explain the actios of some people who are "caught" going to the hotel room of 40 year old cops pretending to be 14 year olds online, but who only "reveal" their age at the last second. But no one likes to think about this version of confirmation bias/the bias you were talking about, somehow.

rippercushions 4y ago

The McDonalds manager story in question: https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3688563&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3688563&page=1 Which would be completely unbelievable if there wasn't security footage of the whole thing!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notch656a 4y ago
Meanwhile if an actual police officer directs a private citizen to perform this kind of search, it's not only apparently legal but approved by the medical and nursing board. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985537/gov.uscourts.azd.985537.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
- mr-wendel 4y ago
  More on this case can be found at https://holdcbpaccountable.org/2016/08/09/cervantes-v-united-states-et-al/ https://holdcbpaccountable.org/2016/08/09/cervantes-v-united.... The real life story is pretty sickening: an ~8 hour ordeal starting with the CDP saying "we think you have drugs" and forcibly sending an 18 year old girl to the hospital for an x-ray, in handcuffs, where she is instead invasively strip searched (with the CDP and hospital staff in audience). Nothing is found so they eventually let her go. The court basically ruled that: - The CDP did its job "correctly". They just need to think you did something wrong to detain you and force you to accept medical interventions. - This was the wrong way to sue: the plaintiff must seek state-law tort action against the doctor for malpractice. Most disturbing to me is considering just is how many people were party to whole affair, and how easily a routine, but ill-fated encounter with authority can go so wrong. I can only hope that additional legal remediation brought some kind of justice and relief. Maybe this is yet another example of how contorted US law practice can be. I'm not holding my breath.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
jfc, that manager should be criminally culpable.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  If by "criminally culpable" you mean "awarded over a million dollars", then that is exactly what happened. > Summers also sued McDonald's and was awarded $1 million in punitive damages and $100,000 in compensatory damages.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    yes, awarded a million dollars for being fucking stupid.
    - loa_in_ 4y ago
      And apparently completely devoid of any idea of human decency, yes
      - cookie_monsta 4y ago
        This seems a bit harsh. Nobody really says that about the participants in the Milgram experiment[1], but the psychologist in the ABC article says that this is probably why the caller targeted fast food restaurants >"Everything is by the book," he explained. "This is how you serve it. This is exactly how you do it. You follow the book — you're OK. I believe he picked fast food restaurants because he knew, once you got them away from that book, once it was something outside the manual or the procedures, they would be lost." [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        The participants in the milgram experiment are absolutely judged that way, the difference is there was no actual harm done in the experiment. This woman should be in jail, criminal negligence is a thing.
noduerme 4y ago
Insane and yet totally believable if you spend any time dealing with franchisees.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  What does that mean?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

robgibbons 4y ago

Sounds like the sunken cost fallacy

silisili 4y ago
That's what came to my mind, but it's subtly different. Sunk cost is usually seemingly rational thinking about capital invested. Whereas this is rather irrational refusal to see a problem due to potential embarrassment, usually along with some type of investment.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  Cognitive bias?
- ghaff 4y ago
  It's more along the lines of you develop tunnel vision. You just look at the next step ahead and you never backup and ask yourself whether the whole thing makes sense. You see it with all kinds of things including solving technical and other problems. Once you've decided something is true, it's easy to dismiss all sorts of signals that maybe it isn't.

noduerme 4y ago

Speaking of McDonald's, what you're describing is the same impulse that makes me accept and consume a hamburger after I've watched numerous employees violating health codes before they hand it to me. Like, this is a major company, and I don't have enough time to question all the details...

matheusmoreira 4y ago

I think it's because way too many people don't have firm boundaries. They don't recognize unacceptable behavior and so cannot put a stop to it before they are victimized. Someone tried to scam me once by taking over the Instagram account of a hotel and baiting me with a discount. That by itself is not a problem, it could be a legit offer. Their intentions became obvious when I randomly got a message with a 2 factor code and they asked me for the number. Criminals must necessarily violate social rules in order to carry out their crimes. A robber on the street must close the distance against the victim in order to get in attack range. In my case, the unacceptable behavior was asking me about information that was not only secret but also useless to anyone but me. Recognizing these violations of social norms and enforcing firm boundaries is necessary to defend against these people. People who don't understand what a 2 factor code is will not recognize that it is unacceptable behavior for another person to ask for one and will see no problem with revealing the secret.