Psychology Today, as discussed by Bruce, provides insight into the mind of cons and the practice of fraud:
My laboratory studies of college students have shown that two percent of them are “unconditional nonreciprocators.” That’s a mouthful! This means that when they are trusted they don’t return money to person who trusted them (these experiments are described in my post on neuroeconomics). What do we really call these people in my lab? Bastards. Yup, not folks that you would want to have a cup of coffee with. These people are deceptive, don’t stay in relationships long, and enjoy taking advantage of others. Psychologically, they resemble sociopaths. Bastards are dangerous because they have learned how to simulate trustworthiness. My research has demonstrated that they have highly dysregulated THOMASes [The Human Oxytocin Mediated Attachment System].
The author emphasizes that two percent is not bad since that means a large majority of people therefore are not bastards. He also turns to literature for historic prose on living with fraud:
Russian playwright Anton Chekov said “You must trust and believe in people or life becomes impossible.” I’d say that’s about right-just watch for the occasional con.
Occasional is higher than two percent, seems to me. What percentage would Chekov have guessed? Does the percentage go up in later age groups?
A 2002 paper called Trust among strangers is based on a game that simulates the opportunity for reciprocation and charts the probabilities.
The BBC reports that family feuds and revenge killing in Albania prevents some children from leaving their house:
Because the Kanun precludes entering another person’s property to exact revenge, home is the only safe place for those under threat.
[…]
The non-governmental National Reconciliation Committee (NRC), a group that tries to mediate between warring families, estimates that several thousand Albanian families are currently embroiled in feuds nationwide, leaving some 800 children confined to their homes.
Reconciliation is said to require unanimous consent from family groups of 50 or more people.
At least five of the individuals show the effects of a violent attack, one even had the tip of a stone weapon embedded in a vertebra.
Wolfgang Haak says that as most of the people in the graves were women and children it is probable that most of the adults were elsewhere at the time of the attack, perhaps out fighting or working in their fields.
“They returned home to the village and found their loved ones dead. It’s an assumption, but the most plausible explanation.”
Researchers say such violence fits with what we know about life in central Europe at the time – the area had fertile soils, a stable climate and natural access routes. This made it a desirable place to live, but also created competition amongst its inhabitants, leading to violent confrontations when one community tried to displace another.
Thus, life could be very dangerous in Germany 4,600 years ago. The latest research also shows grieving and compassion during that period. DNA tests on the remains revealed that children were buried in the arms of their parents, facing towards them.
Craig Newmark has posted a nice explanation of Net Neutrality, and why he says it’s “NOT about regulation”:
The people who run the infrastructure of the Net are Internet Service Providers, many of whom are large telecoms. They’re not really private companies, in that they use public properties to get a signal from one place to another. For example, they have to run wires through public “rights-of-way”, or they need to use public airwaves for radio style communication.
In return, we expect them to respect American values like fair play and a level playing field; no pay for privilege.