Gift Giving Psychology (Part 2): The Door-In-The-Face Technique
By Heath Shive

In the last blog we talked about the norm of reciprocity – a societal rule that says: you have to give me something if I give you something.  

This next mind trick is a variation of the norm of reciprocity.

This mind trick is called the door-in-the-face technique – or in other words, when you reject my first ridiculous offer, you will be more likely to agree to my second offer.

Sound impossible?  To the science!

The Science

In 1976, psychologists Robert Cialdini and Karen Ascani performed a study at the University of Arizona. 

They asked people to donate blood as part of a blood drive, but they were asked in 2 different ways: (1) one group would be asked if they would donate blood sometime tomorrow, but…(2) a second group would be asked to donate once every 2 months for 3 years! 

Okay, here's the twist.  If people in the second group refused to donate blood every 2 months for 3 years, only then would the researchers ask them to donate just once sometime tomorrow. 

The results showed that more people agreed to give blood (and actually gave blood) when they received the more extreme request first! 

When people reject the first proposal (“shut the door in your face”), they are more likely to agree to the second (lesser) request.  

Door-in-the-face technique!

How It Works

The door-in-the-face technique makes use of 2 basic psychological processes.
 
First, the large request sets up a contrast effect – for example, contrast the one time blood request to a blood donation over 3 years! 

Second, the immediate concession by the requester invokes the norm of reciprocity.  The requester implicitly says, “Hey!  I’m giving a little; now you give a little.”

And many people do!

Car dealers often artificially inflate the asking price for a car.  During negotiation, the seller “graciously” will concede a little on the car price.  But now it is your “turn” to raise your buying price!

Have you ever had a sales agent say something like: “So can I write your name for a $100 donation?” or “…for a 2-year lease?” or “…for 20 boxes of units?” 

They ask high to set an artificially high standard – so that you will settle (or reciprocate) at a higher number than normally.

Conclusion

As explained in the great persuasion manual, Age of Propaganda: “The norm of reciprocity is successful as a persuasion device because it directs our thoughts and carries its own motivation to act on those thoughts.  We are directed to think “How can I repay my obligation?” as opposed to “Is this a good deal?”

So this Christmas, if your daughter asks for a pony…beware.  She knows you will say no.  It is the second gift on her list that she really wants. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!
 
Sources: 
Cialdini, R. B., & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295-300. 

Pratkanis, Anthony, & Elliot Aronson.  Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and abuse of Persuasion.  W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991. 
​

Gift Giving Psychology: The Norm of Reciprocity
by Heath Shive

In the 1970s, the Hare Krishna were experts at collecting donations.  They looked strange, would chant in airports, and had a tendency to "weird" people out.  So, how did they do it?   

They used the psychology of the norm of reciprocity.  

So this Christmas, how can you protect yourself from this psychological trick?

Let's find out.

To the science of gift giving!

The Norm of Reciprocity: Society’s Guilt Trip

The Hare Krishna were a very visible religious movement in the 1970s, especially in airports.  When it comes to the art of persuasion, you wouldn’t expect a chanting, orange-clad, stubble-headed pagan to be an expert - but their organization made millions!

It was the famous psychologist Robert Cialdini who discovered that they used a powerful technique called the norm of reciprocity.

But first, what is a "norm"?  As described in the fascinating book Age of Propaganda, a norm is a specific guide to conduct.  A norm is how society tells you to act normally – like tipping 15% at a restaurant, sneezing into your elbow, or not cutting in line. 

The norm of reciprocity is simply this: If I give you something, you are obligated to give me something in return.  The norm of reciprocity regulates exchange in a culture.

The Power of Flowers

Psychologist Robert Cialdini – who spent hours at the airport observing Krishnas in action – discovered that the sect used the norm of reciprocity to “guilt trip” people into giving money. 

How?

They would simply give you a flower.

The Krishna member would spy a “victim,” who would suddenly find a flower pressed into his or her hand.  If the target attempted to give it back, the Krishna would refuse by saying, “It is our gift to you.” Only then did they request a donation.

The gift of a flower established a feeling of obligation.  The targeted “victim” would feel compelled to donate – thus fulfilling the norm of reciprocity. 

The Power of a Free Coke

In fact – even if you dislike someone – the norm of reciprocity can work. A study by Dennis Regan published 1971 illustrates this.  In his experiment, two male students were surveyed for their “aesthetic judgments.”  However one of the students was an accomplice who intentionally either made himself likable or unlikable. 

After five minutes, sometimes the accomplice would leave and come back with two Cokes…offering the other Coke to the other student.  At the end of the study, the accomplice asked the real student if he would like to buy some raffle tickets. 

The results showed that when the accomplice gave the other student a Coke, he sold nearly twice as many tickets compared with no Coke – whether the accomplice was likable or not!

Conclusion

So beware of gifts!  Those “free” cheese samples at the grocery, those “free” mailing labels from a nonprofit, and that “free” drink from someone in a bar.  Beware that invitation to a distant cousin’s or college friend’s wedding.  Beware of those “free” pill samples given by a pharmaceutical rep.

Because every gift gives twice - it gives a gift...and an obligation.     

The norm of reciprocity is supposed to establish a fair exchange for a better society.  Ironically, the norm of reciprocity can be used to cheat people too. 

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:

Cialdini, Robert.  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.  Rev.ed. Collins, 2007. 
  
Pratkanis, Anthony, & Elliot Aronson.  Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion.  W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991. 

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639. ​

30 Days Hath November: The Ancient Magic (and Modern Math) of 60
By Heath Shive

“Thirty days hath September/April, June, and November/All the rest have thirty-one/Except February.”

As a poem, this stinks.  As a way to remember numbers, it’s helpful.

Math doesn’t have to be profound, poetic, or even comprehensible.  Math only needs to be helpful. 

As science author Brian Clegg writes in his book Are Numbers Real?: “Math, in the end, provides nothing more or less than a set of rules that are used to get from a starting point to an outcome.”

And if we have problems with numbers today, imagine what it was like for humanity in the Bronze Age?!

How did the ancients get along with numbers?

They used the magic of the number 60!  And we still do today, sometimes.

To the math!

The Magic of 60

The modern metric system is brilliantly based on the number 10.  And yet in Bronze Age Babylon, the base number used was 60.  Why?  The number 10 makes sense (10 fingers, 10 toes, etc), right? 

But 10 is awful for fractions.  In the year 2000 B.C., you do not need fractions.  Fractions are so abstract, and the real world uses whole numbers.  Ancient merchants didn’t sell 1/3 of a camel or 2/7 of a jug of wine. 

And yet they still needed to be able to divide things up.    

So they used 60.  The number 10 is divisible only by 1, 2, 5, and 10.  But the number 60 can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60.  So 60 is just so much more useful!

And ancient Babylon did use it.  Twelve months to a year.  Each month has 30 days.  A total of 360 days. 

Hey, you say, there are 364.25 days in a year!

That’s right!  That is why ancient calendars threw in extra days with intercalation (or epagomenal days in Ancient Egypt).

Where Is the 60?

We see 60-base numbers pop up in strange ways: ancient pantheons had 12 gods, 12 signs to a zodiac, 12 tribes in Ancient Israel, 12 apostles, 12 months a year, 30 days a month, 4 seasons, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes an hour, etc.

But you say: Hey, I see more 12 than 60!

That’s right. You would almost believe that the number system was based on 12.  But no.  The number 12 is just the most common (and most accessible for the illiterate) factor of 60!

The ancient world used 60 in other ways, especially with money.  The talent was a large denomination of money used by Babylonians, Sumerians, and Hebrews.  Originally, a talent was divided into 60 minas, and each mina was divided into 60 shekels.  Jesus was betrayed by Judas for “30 pieces of silver,” or 30 shekels. 

And of course, November still has 30 days.
   
Conclusion

No one ever invented geometry, algebra, or calculus for fun.  Math in all its forms and numeric glory must - in the end - serve a purpose.

And after a while, 60 wasn’t useful anymore and was left behind.  Ten is the new base number for our society. 

But back when there was no such thing as a calculator, abacus, slide rule, algebra, or geometry – not even a public school system to teach fundamentals – the number 60 was the world’s math teacher.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Source:
Clegg, Brian.  Are Numbers Real? The Uncanny Relationship of Mathematics and the Physical World.  St. Martin’s Press, 2016. 
 
  
         
 

How to Brainwash Turkeys…and Maybe Humans Too?  
By Heath Shive

Robert Cialdini wrote what is quite possibly the most influential book in modern psychology, entitled Influence.  In its first chapter, Cialdini describes an experiment made by the pioneering ethologist M.W. Fox. 

Fox noticed that mother turkeys can either care for their young - or they can ignore them. 

A turkey’s mothering is triggered by the “cheep-cheep” sound of chicks. 

The more “cheep-cheep,” the more love.

Fox used a stuffed weasel (or European polecat) in an experiment.  Turkeys and weasels are natural enemies.  But Fox found that if a stuffed polecat played the “cheep-cheep” sounds of baby turkeys, then the turkey not only approached a stuffed weasel, but even gathered the stuffed weasel beneath her! 

When the “cheep-cheep” sound ended, then the mother turkey would attack!

We might think it’s inferior that a turkey is so simply programmed. 

But are humans any different?  Do we honestly “think” about all of our actions?

To the science!

The Norm of Reciprocity

If I give you a gift, you feel compelled to give me something in return.  
 
A study by Dennis Regan published 1971 illustrates this. Two male students were surveyed for their “aesthetic judgments.”  However one of the students was an accomplice - who intentionally either made himself likable or unlikable.

After five minutes, sometimes the accomplice would leave and come back with two Cokes…offering the other Coke to the other student.  At the end of the study, the accomplice asked the real student if he would like to buy some raffle tickets.

The results showed that when the accomplice gave the other student a Coke, he sold nearly twice as many tickets compared with no Coke – whether the accomplice was likable or not!

The Endowment Effect

You automatically ascribe more value to anything  you perceive as “yours.”  

It’s called the endowment effect. 

In a 1989 paper, economist Jack Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between a coffee mug and a chocolate bar. Of these students, 44 percent wanted the chocolate bar, 56 percent wanted mug.  In other words, the items were roughly equal in perceived value.

Knetsch gave a second group only coffee mugs, but they could exchange for chocolate bars later if they wanted.  He gave a third group only chocolate bars, but they could exchange for mugs later.

About half of the students should have traded the items, right?  No!  Only 11 percent of the mug-owning students wanted to trade, and only 10 percent of chocolate bar-owning students wanted to exchange for mugs. The vast majority of students didn’t want to part with what they had now that they had (“owned”) it!

The Peak-End Rule

We judge an experience based on how it ends!

Barry Schwartz – author of the fantastic book The Paradox of Choice - cites a lab study where participants were asked to listen to two terribly loud noises.  The first noise was awful, but lasted only 8 seconds.  The second noise was the same as the first and also lasted 8 seconds…but it was followed by another 8 seconds of unpleasant noise that wasn’t as loud.

The vast majority of the participants chose the second noise – despite the fact that it had all the noise of the first, and was twice as long (16 seconds vs. 8 seconds).

Conclusion

Your mom always told you to think before you act.  But “thinking” is a long and deliberate process.  Our brain is guided primarily by instincts (shortcuts to decision-making) that are written on our DNA. 

Whoever knows your instincts knows the “buttons” in your mind.  Much of modern advertising and political propaganda is trying to bypass our thinking to control us by instinct.

But knowing that there’s a trap is the first step in avoiding it.  Mind your thoughts!

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!  

Sources:
Cialdini, Robert.  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.  Rev.ed. Collins, 2007. 

Knetsch, Jack L., "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, 1989, 79, 1277-1284.

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639. 

Schwartz, Barry.  The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less.  New York: Harper Perennial, 2004.  
​

Canada’s Stone Cold Success with Immigration
By Heath Shive

Natives versus newcomers!  It’s an ancient dynamic.  Immigration usually meant invasion, in the Old Days.  And in the Modern Age, some still feel that way, all over the world.    

But one country found “the sweet spot.”

Canada. 

Jonathon Tepperman wrote a book entitled The Fix: How Nations Survive and Thrive in a World of Decline. 

In the book, Tepperman uses Canada’s immigration policy as an example to the world.  But he is not shy about why Canada adopted its policy – which had a lot less to do with political enlightenment and much more to do with cold, hard political engineering. 

To the fix!

A Cold Truth of the Great White North

More than a half century ago, Canada was experiencing economic growth, but it had problems filling the jobs. 

At that time, Canada was economically healthy, but politically the nation seemed to be falling apart.  The separatist movement for an independent Quebec was stronger than ever.  And regionally, Canadians were affiliating almost as strongly with their American neighbors – “Nova Scotians with New Englanders, Manitobans with Minnesotans, Alberta cowboys with Montana ranchers” – as they did with fellow Canadians.

To solve the shortage of labor in the country, Canada formally abandoned ethnicity as a basis for evaluating immigrants in 1962 – becoming the becoming the first country in the world to do so!

But the audacious Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau went a few steps farther with a new super-charged immigration policy.  Trudeau thought that immigrants were key to Canada’s future…and unity.

Unity…by immigrants?  How?  Immigrants – once integrated – were more likely to identify with the central government, and greater national identity meant a weaker regional identity (e.g., a separatist Quebecois).

And a large flow of immigrants meant a much needed population surge for the 2nd-largest country on earth!

But…

There’s a Catch

“Open arms” did not mean “open border.”  Immigration was given a greater governmental focus, but that meant greater stringency for a greater number of regulations. 

Only certain immigrants would be let in.  As Tepperman writes, “Henceforth, all independent applicants for residency – regardless of birthplace or race – would be assessed by assigning them points on the basis of nine criteria, such as education, age, fluency in English or French, and whether or not their skills fit Canada’s economic needs.”

Only immigrants who were fluent, educated, and skilled were allowed.

No fluency in English or French?  No skills?  Criminal record?  Stay out.  

Even in Canada, there's no "free lunch."

In a speech in October 1971, Trudeau promised that his government would support all cultures – small or strong.  But immigrants had to demonstrate “a desire and effort…to contribute to Canada.”

Conclusion

National integration did not have to mean cultural assimilation – and thus cultural pluralism is born.

And in Canada, it works great.  Tepperman mentions that, today, over 20 percent of Canada’s citizens are foreign-born – more than twice the number in the United States. 

(Note: Only 6% of Canada's immigrants are undocumented, whereas around 1/3 of America's immigrants are undocumented.  This is the result more of geographic isolation than utopian success.)   
 
Canada's policy was not about being “nice.”  This was a practical and successful way to make Canada bigger and better than ever by making sure that the better and stronger immigrants went north…instead of somewhere else. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Source:
Tepperman, Jonathon.  The Fix: How Nations Survive and Thrive in a World in Decline.  Tim Duggan Books, 2016.     

 War: The Beneficial History of Conquest(?)
By Heath Shive

The only constants in life are death and taxes.  And nothing quite blends these two constants better than war. 

War is always expensive (and thus needs taxes) and always lethal (and thus requires death). 

There seem to be 2 dominant emotions about war.  War is either a grotesque evil or a glorious expression of ideals. 

But is war good for anything?  

And according to nationally renowned history professor Ian Morris, the answer is yes – as long as the war accomplishes one thing. 

What thing is that?

To the history of war!

Savage Past, Peaceful Present

In the 1990s, anthropologist Lawrence Keeley (author of War Before Civilization) showed that the Stone Age societies that still existed in the 20th century were shockingly violent.  Feuding and raiding typically carried off 1 person in 10 or even 1 in 5.

Ian Morris cites that by most estimates 10 to 20 percent of all people living in Stone Age societies died at the hands of other humans!

Primitive humanity was ultraviolent! 

Ian Morris makes this comparison.  After World War Two, between 1950 and 1974, just 1 Scandinavian in 5,000 and 1 Briton in 4,000 died violently, and while the American homicide rate – 1 in 700 – remained higher than Europe’s, it had still fallen 50 percent since the 1930s.

How did humanity decrease its violent death rate by 99% over the course of a few thousand years?!!

The answer: War.

Conquest Is Good?

Ian Morris wrote the fascinating book War! What Is It Good For?  The book is over 400 pages long, so it’s hard to summarize his theory in a blog article.  But here it is. 

In the ancient past, humanity was comprised of hundreds of tribes – each with a territory defined by a border. 

Since war is overwhelming fought along borders against external foes, the more borders that exist the greater the number of wars. 

But a funny thing happens when your tribe is conquered by an empire!  Your tiny wars stop, the tribes are overwhelmed by a new over-arching political identity, tranquility is enforced, and the society becomes more prosperous.

Historical Examples

The Romans were militant and aggressive, but after the Romans conquered your smaller state, you were part of the empire.  The Romans conquered you…then protected you.  War moved away from you to the new border and peace followed – the Pax Romana. 

In ancient China, there was the classical period of the Seven Warring States.  All of these States were conquered by the Han Dynasty, which imposed peace and created a Pax Sinica (Morris’ words). 

Once India was a jumble of dozens of competing rajah states.  Then the British Raj conquered the entire subcontinent.  Death rituals from suttee to thuggee were abolished.  Following the last War of Indian Independence (or Sepoy Mutiny, depending on whom you ask), the subcontinent had 80 non-war years – time enough to form a comprehensive national identity.  The British Empire disintegrated…but India did not, and remains one united nation to this day. 

The Roman Empire, the Han dynasty, and the British Raj were no paradise – but they were considerably less violent than their predecessors. 

Conclusion

This is Morris’ theory: War only becomes a net positive if it results in the expansion of the nation-state.

So according to Morris' theory, any war or conflict that does not expand the nation-state is a loss.  Death and taxes are a constant.  It's bad enough to lose tax revenue to war.  To lose the lives of your people too...  

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Morris, Ian.  War! What Is It Good For? : Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots.  Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014. 
Keeley, Lawrence.  War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.  Oxford University Press (New York), 1996.   
 

Seduction Victims:  The 18 Types from Robert Greene’s “The Art of Seduction”
By H. Shive

As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.  There cannot be seducers without the seduced.

Robert Greene - the same author who gave us the 9 Types of Seducers - wrote another list of the 18 Types of Seduction Victims. 

Do you see yourself somewhere on the list?  Be careful!

The 18 Types of Seduction Victims

1. The Reformed Rake or Siren: They were once seducers themselves, but they settled down.  They feel the loss.  To seduce them, they must feel like they are back in the game again.  For a Reformed Rake, get his attention indirectly and let him burn with desire.  For a Reformed Siren, make her feel irresistible once again.  These people are unfaithful by nature; they will yearn for the return of their power, but…they will also suffer the consequences.
2. The Disappointed Dreamer:  These people read the big books and watched the epic movies.  They grew up with profound internal fantasy lives.  Now they’re grown up; they’ve compromised.  But a part of them still yearns for  grandiosity!  To seduce them, know that they have great imaginations and will respond to anything romantic or mysterious.  They desperately want a focus for their pent-up energy.  Make them feel adventurous and audacious.  Show them only some; their imaginations will fill in the blanks.  But reality will be your enemy.  Once the real you – real life – is seen, the illusion is destroyed. 
3. The Pampered Royal:  These people were spoiled children.  Most kids learn to entertain themselves somewhat, but the Pampered Royal thinks other people should entertain them.  They are looking for that parental figure that will spoil them again; that is what they crave!  To seduce them, the key is variety – provide distractions, create mysteries, give them spectacles and colors.  Once hooked, they will be dependent on you, as they were on their parents.  Recognize this type by their snobbery and pretension – they think they’re aristocrats.
4.  The New Prude:   Do not mistake puritanism for prudery.  Prudes don’t care about righteousness per se.  Prudes are obsessed by how others view them.  They stringently uphold societal standards of tastefulness, political sensitivity, and values.  They are judgmental and critical.  Deep down, they are excited by guilty pleasures and vices.  New Prudes will be seduced by simply being in contact with a Rake or Siren.  Once they finally let go of their inhibitions, they become your followers – and may even overwhelm you with their newly awakened energies.
5. The Crushed Star:  Once upon a time, these people were celebrated – she may have been the most beautiful woman in the room, he may have been the star athlete, or she was a rising star in the company.  But they have fallen.  To seduce them, do this:  make them the center of attention.  Be charming and attentive, fawning on their words, especially regarding their past glory.  Your attention relieves their inner pain.
6. The Novice:  They are innocent because they don’t have experience.  But they yearn for experience!  No one is as angelic as they seem.  Novices are attracted to those who seem like they have the most to teach – they are attracted to the rogues, the promiscuous, and wicked.  To seduce them, be wicked but look approachable.  You’re a fun rogue!  The best course is to mix innocence and corruption, and then they will be fascinated by you.
7. The Conqueror:  These people yearn for power.  They want to dominate, and they feed on aggression.  To seduce, do not be easy prey.  They want to chase; they want challenge; they want victory.  Coquetry works on them – because it keeps them off their balance.  Exhaust them and sooner or later they become dependent.  Just look at how Josephine controlled Napoleon.  Conquerors can be male or female.
8. The Exotic Fetishist:  These people are not just interested in the new (we all are), but they are obsessed with it as well.  They are really empty on the inside and don’t like who they are.  They think that their exhilaration is far outside themselves – the exotic.  To seduce: make yourself look exotic – make yourself theater to their need for the new.  But their inherent shallowness will make them weary of you quickly.      
9. The Drama Queen:  Both men and women can be Drama Queens.  Know them by the numerous tragedies and traumas in their life.  They want the pain and bother of drama – they identify with it.  If you are stable and secure, they will be bored with you.  Drama is necessary to alleviate their boredom.  To seduce them, you must show them your rough side – it’s the only thing they respect…or desire.
10. The Professor:  These people overanalyze everything.  Their minds are overdeveloped, usually at the expense of their physicality.  Underneath intellectual strengths are deep insecurities.  They want the physical, without analysis, without bars!  To seduce: offer them an escape from the mind.  Provide the physical stimulation that they cannot provide themselves.  They will be addicted.
11. The Beauty: Beauties know that they’re beautiful – it’s the source of their power.  But it can make them feel the lack of their other qualities.  Most people worship beauty from far away, and those who come closer only want one thing.  The Beauty can feel isolated.  To seduce: you must worship their body of course (it’s their power), but praise their other virtues, their skills, their principles, etc.  The Beauty has never had to work at romance before; a Beauty will be passive.  Coquetry would be used well here.  But beware!  Beauties are high maintenance. 
12. The Aging Baby:  Some people never want to grow up.  This can be tragic after a while – what was so sexy as a twenty-something can look tragic on a forty-something.  What they desperately want is someone else to be the “adult” in their life.  They want to be taken care of, so that they are free to play more often.  They are like children, and like children they can be narcissists. 
13. The Rescuer:  Rescuers are sensitive people and they may genuinely love to help the sad and weak.  But at the same time, they enjoy playing the rescuer – it strengthens their egos and makes them feel superior.  To seduce a Rescuer male, play the damsel in distress.  To seduce a Rescuer female, play the victim in a heartless world.
14. The Roué, or Rogue:  Rogues have lived the high life and have experienced every pleasure they could find.  By exhausting their carnality, they exhausted themselves.  They are jaded.  They yearn for the youth and innocence which they can never have again.  To seduce them: you will need to at least look young.  Claim that you are inexperienced to seem more innocent.  They will be drawn to your innocence, even as they try to steal it from you. 
15.  The Idol Worshipper: Everyone feels a little empty on the inside, but Idol Worshippers are emptier than most.  They will look for great causes or great people to adore and serve, thus distracting them from their inner emptiness.  To seduce them:  let romance and their “religion” combine.  At first, share their cause, and then become it.  Hide your flaws, or give them a holy polish.  Keep yourself elevated; mirror the qualities that inspire them.     
16. The Sensualist:  All people like pleasure, but Sensualists have overactive senses – and those senses demand to be fed.  Sensualists will be sensitive to lights and colors, get thrills from a scents or aromas, and love the touch and texture of things.  To seduce them:  aim for their senses!  Find out what they enjoy, like favorite colors, scents, and sounds.  Appeal to their senses and they will be distracted and vulnerable.  Variety in kind and quality will keep them from being bored. 
17. The Lonely Leader:  Powerful people are distrustful of others – who are often fawning and complimentary just for something in return.  They lose respect for other people and feel isolated.  That isolation is the key to their seduction.  Try talking to them as an equal, because – without flattery – you will seem more genuine.  There’s not much room for seduction in their minds, perhaps because they have become hard or arrogant.  But keep a way to stay active in their mind, and they will enjoy the escape you provide from the mean details of their world. 
18. The Floating Gender:  People of this type feel that the distinction between genders is a burden.  In more traditional societies, they may go underground – repressing the one side and expressing the other.  They may be considered latent homosexuals – but they could just as well be very heterosexual, just expressing different energies.  What they seek is someone who allows them to relax their self-control, so that they can explore their repressed energies.  If you’re not a Floating Gender yourself, don’t bother to seduce them – your lie will be quickly discovered.  

Conclusion

Robert Greene wrote of what he called the “Victim Theory” of seduction:  “Nobody in this world feels whole and complete.  We all sense some gap…When we fall in love, it is often with someone who seems to fill that gap.  The process is usually unconscious and depends on luck…But the seducer does not leave such things to chance.”

Seducers will not wait for luck. They will make their own luck.  They will chase you, hunt you, and ravish you. 

That’s exactly what some people want!  Even if you are a victim, can you honestly say that you went unwillingly into their arms?  

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!
Sources:
Greene, Robert.  The Art of Seduction. Penguin Books, 2003.

Canned Pumpkin is NOT Canned Squash: The Science
By H. Shive
​
Every year, someone thinks there is a pumpkin-conspiracy - like this article from Mental Floss entitled "Canned Pumpkin Isn't Actually Canned Pumpkin." 

It's not true. 

So don't attach paranoia to a pumpkin pie just yet. 

To the science!  

Pumpkin Aren't Squash Because Jack-o-Lanterns Aren’t Zucchinis! 

Did you know that the classic orange pumpkin and the zucchini...are the same plant?  They're both members of the species Cucurbita pepo! 
 
But we don't call jack-o-lanterns "carved zucchinis," do we? 

And we don't cry about a great zucchini-conspiracy, do we?
 
Canned pumpkin is primarily made with the Dickinson pumpkin.  Libby’s brand of canned pumpkin is made exclusively of a variety of Dickinson pumpkin.  That’s because the Dickinson pumpkin is the best tasting pumpkin.  Pumpkin pies in the United States are overwhelmingly made from this cultivar. 

Here’s the Science

The Dickinson pumpkin and the butternut squash are both members of the same species, Cucurbita moschata. 

But that doesn't mean that they are both squashes! 

Need another example? 

Broccoli, cabbage, and brussel sprouts are all members of the same species, Brassica oleracea.  But we don't say that sauerkraut is made of broccoli, and we don't say that cole slaw is made from brussel sprouts! 

The Dickinson pumpkin is a pumpkin!  Just because its species has the butternut squash doesn't make the Dickinson pumpkin a squash...anymore than a jack-o-lantern is really a zucchini...or a cabbage is really a broccoli. 

Conclusion

In 2012, American Studies Professor Cindy Ott wrote an exhaustive book entitled Pumpkins: The Curious History of an American Icon - which details how the pumpkin went from poor people's food to an autumn idol of Americana.

Ott tells us that after the Civil War, some southerners thought the pumpkin pie was part of a Yankee conspiracy to corrupt Southern culture!  

There was no conspiracy then...and there isn't one now.  

Honestly, do you want there to be?  

With all the outrage in American society today - constant outrage from every side - don't we all just want pumpkin pie to be honest, American, and delicious?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Ott, Cindy.  Pumpkins: The Curious History of an American Icon.  University of Washington Press, 2012. ​

Sex Appeal, Debt, and Deceit: The Science of a Saturday Night
By Heath Shive

​Are you the sexiest beast in town?  Congratulations! 

But there is also a price.

The biology that's hard-wired into our bodies drives us to action.  All actions have consequences.  One of the consequences is debt...as no doubt you have experienced after a weekend out.  

To the science of Saturday night and its bio-economics!

Players Are Poor? 

In 2008, Daniel Kruger released a paper that showed that the more sexually active a man was – thus “successful” in evolutionary terms – the more likely he had large credit card debt.  The group tested was comprised of men between the ages of 18 to 45, from different zip codes, incomes, and marital status.  But the results were the same.  The men who admitted to the largest number of sexual encounters also admitted to having the smallest savings and higher debt.

Higher mating success correlated directly to higher financial consumption.

Mating Needs Money?

Kruger's study is cited - among many others - by psychologists Glenn Geher and Scott Kaufman in their amazing book Mating Intelligence Unleashed.  Despite the goofy title, this book is the most comprehensive text on the subject of evolutionary psychology (“mating intelligence”) today!

Geher and Kaufman pointed to Kruger’s study for a reason: to show that deceit can be part of a mating strategy too. 

Kruger’s study showed that “wealth signals” – expressed as higher consumption – were not the same as real wealth.  By definition, someone who spends everything doesn’t have “wealth,” they have the opposite – called “debt.”

You don’t own a car or house until you make the last payment.  You can lose your job.  Debt can ruin your credit score.  But high financial consumption still “signals” wealth and so can be an effective mating strategy.     

Women Use Money and Deceit Too?

Yes, women can be guilty of deceitful mating strategies as well!

For starters, women spend much more money than men on makeup and clothing.  Creams and moisturizers can hide wrinkles and smooth skin.  High heel shoes lift the buttocks and tone the calves.  Hair dye conceals the gray.  Makeup can enhance sensuality.  Provocative clothing (high heels, short skirts, décolletage, etc.) are ways of provoking a sexually exciting response…even when she herself is not in a sexually aroused state.  

In another study, researchers found that women could lie about other things to provoke male desire.  For example, she could lie about wanting a short- or long-term relationship, about wanting children, or even how much she likes sex!

Deceiving Is Believing?

There’s an old maxim: Fake it till you make it.  And sometimes we fool ourselves!

In a study - by researchers Saad and Vongas (2008) - male subjects were given two cars to drive: a “clunker” and a Porsche.  Their testosterone levels were measured afterwards.  After driving the Porsche, the subjects’ testosterone levels were boosted! 

Higher financial consumption is not only more attractive, it can genuinely make you feel sexier too!

So in a way, our spending can deceive us too.

Conclusion

Just because a strategy can be effective doesn’t mean that it’s for the best.  Debt is poison to long-term finances.  You need savings to build wealth. 

Deceiving people with a false sexual allure is not going to be successful in the long-term either.  That’s why we have reputations.  Is such deceit a sound basis for a relationship? 

The mating instinct drives us.  What price are we really willing to pay?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 
​
Buss, D.M.  The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.  Basic Books, 2003.

Geher, Glenn and Kaufman, Scott.  Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love.  Oxford University Press, 2013.

Haselton, M. G., Buss, D.M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005).  Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology deception between the sexes.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 3-23. 

Kruger, D.J. (2008) Male financial consumption is associated with higher mating intentions and mating success.  Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 603-612.

Saad, G., & Vongas, J. (2008).  The effect of conspicuous consumption on men’s testosterone levels.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 80-92.