The Madness Of Releasing The Yorkshire Ripper

The prospect that The Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe might be considered for release because in the opinion of clinical psychologists 'he no longer represents a threat' is alarming.

In the language of social influence this is a Fundamental Attribution Error and society would be really gullible if they acted on the advice the clinicians.

We shouldn't be susceptible to what is the psychological equivalent of 'Captainitis' where because these people have the titles & trappings of their profession we go along with everything they say. As cognitive psychlogists they are evidently locked in their own 'psychic prisons'.

The Yorkshire Ripper will obviously from a cognitive and personality point of view appear as 'No Threat' because the situation he is in is a controlled medical environment!

The point is that there is no way of predicting at all if in a free natural environment he will not revert to his killing behaviors. We do have chilling past evidence though that his situation provided the platform for his behaviour. Retired Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Gregg is right to be staggered at the prospect.

So what do these cognitive scientists suggest? Gathering empirical evidence? Let this mass murderer out into a normal environment and see what happens? A normal environment for Peter Sutcliffe will probably mean that he returns to his normal behaviour.

Situations affect behaviour Don't believe me? Take your drum kit down to the library and start playing it, then tell me what happens.

Do you think this serial killer should be released on the recommendation of prison psychologists? Let me know.

Read more:
Yorkshire Ripper Fit To Be Freed
Peter Sutcliffe
Exploring Lunatic Asylums
Ripper To Be Freed From Broadmoor

Lies, Deception and The Selfish Meme

image credit Walt Disney

I'm reading Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene for the first time. I have never read Pinnochio.

On page 63 of the 30th Anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene (OUP) he says...

"A survival machine may be said to have communicated another one when it influences the behaviour or the state of its nervous system". This got me thinking about general social situations and current affairs like the Banking fiasco and how unscrupulous people are hell bent on making sure their version of events survive.

I have also recently read Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate in which he explains that:

"Every human relationship…has a distinct psychology forged by a pattern of converging and diverging interests" adding that we "suppress evidence that we are not as beneficent or competent as we would like to think"

In other words if we think we've been gullible because we haven't spotted someone lying or decieving us then we should be kinder to ourselves because we are so susceptible to the power and skill of a deciever.

Robert Trivers suggests that:

“If…deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray…the deception being practised. Thus the conventional view that natural selection favours nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naïve view of mental evolution”


Woah!! our nervous systems (brains and cognitions) are NOT about creating the truth and there is survival benefit in telling lies.

Dawkins points out (p64) that many animals are in the business of deception from butterflies to angler fish, glow worms to hover-flies. With the Bankers in mind (and of course this applies to any deciever in any social situation), Dawkins then makes the precient remark that:

"Whenever a communication system evolves there is always the danger that some will exploit the system for their own ends...we must expect lies and deceit and selfish exploitation of communication to arise whenever the interests of the genes of different individuals diverge...we must even expect children to decieve their parents, that husbands will cheat on their wives and that brother will lie to brother"

Powerful ‘mind-sets’ (the rich, the bully, the narcissist) make sense of and speak of the world in a particular way. This could be described as the ‘selfish meme’ It resists changes that might be made to a direction it didn’t want to go. Change is not about rational actors but rationalising people. These rationalisations (theories for success and of causes and effects) are expressed as words that grow into discourses, which in turn inhabit the world of social influence, a world in which rival versions of the truth seek to survive longer than their adversaries by any means they can in order to protect the psychological integrity of the individual who cares for them.

The only evolutionary development human's needed now is for lying genes to influence the size of someone's nose just like Pinnochio. Just imagine...never being duped again, I could justify my investment in my wide screen TV because of its ability to cope with 'Nasal Extensiveness'seen in Political Broadcasts and in Treasury Committee hearings :)

Bankers, Big Business and Ferengi Ethics

Recognise the face? Its Quark the Ferengi bartender from Star Trek. Quark has a reputation for being unscrupulous in his commercial dealings. How much does Quark represent the dealings of modern banking and business?

N.Craig Smith Professor of Marketing at Georgetown University wrote a paper in 1995 entitled Marketing Strategies For The Ethics Era

It was published in the Sloan Management Review volume 36 issue 4.

In his abstract Professor Smith says:

"Marketing strategies are increasingly subject to public scrutiny and are being held to higher standards. Caveat emptor is no longer acceptance as a basis for justifying marketing practices..Today, consumers' interests are increasingly favored over producers' consumers can make informed choices, and less capable consumers are offered special protection. The author provides a practical framework - including the consumer sovereignty test - for marketers to apply to their decision making."

Smith suggested that Businesses just like the products they produce could be labelled in a way that showed their attitude and performance in respect of:

Consumer Capability - (is the consumer vulnerable?)
Information - (are expectations and promises realised?)
Choice - (do customers have an opportunity to switch?)

His checklist is elaborated in the paper to include aspects of:
Product Policy - product safety, deceptive packaging, planned obsolesence etc
Marketing Communications - questionable sales techniques, misrepresentation, conflicts of interests, ie pushing products not best suited to the customer, puffery, advertising as hidden perusader.
Pricing deceptive, unfair
Distribution selective, deliberate shortages

How these issues echo today with the 2009 financial crisis. and it is interesting to note the UK Prime Minister's concern with controlling the excesses of The Banking Bonus Culture

Goodwin, McKillop, Hornby, and Stevenson Banking's 4 Messketeers

In parliament today there was Neither Sorrow or Honour for the 4 Messketeers as they tried to explain that they had not taken advantage of their positions, power, authority and customers.

The great and the 'good' (sic) of British Banking were brought before the UK's Parliamentary Treasury Committee today to explain their industry's ineptitude.

Sir Fred Goodwin, Sir Tom McKillop, Andy Hornby, and Lord Stevenson made a feeble attempt at explaining the disgraceful behaviour of policy makers and decisions takers in their organisations, and sought to explain away the societal havoc they have caused with a 'sorry'.

Just how authentically 'sorry' are these bean counters for destroying the innovative ideas, loyalty, and industry of ordinary people? How can they possibly truly relate to what they've done?

I believe there is only one way that they can atone for their misjudgement in a way that is unequivocal and for all to see. These people and their lieutenants might consider Seppuku because that is a clear demonstration of their contrition. The Samurai certainly had a sense of honour.

I would be interested to hear their reasons for not doing this? Is it because they believe that their 'talents' are too indispensible for the resurrection of their industry? That they think that way is hardly surprising when one of the 4 Mesketeers,is retained at £60,000 a month (paid out taxpayers money)to advise Lloyds TSB!!

These people have built their careers on the expectation that people will be gullible and treat their utterances and actions uncritically. For the first time the social influence of social media and networking can bring the full force of public opinion to their ears. No longer can people like this assume they can take advantage of their customers with impunity.

New rules should be brought to the financial service industry that mirror the medical profession. We should have the ability to strike inept bankers off so that they can never operate in financial services industry in any capacity whatsoever for as long as they live. If they consider that to be too long a duration...they have an option of course.

Justin Urquhart Stewart Warns Banking Talent Will Leave UK

Investment expert Justin Urquhart Stewart
has just been on UK TV with a shock revelation that UK banking talent will leave the country if they don't get their bonuses paid Well Justin, just how gullible do you feel the general public are?

I bet, dear reader, your knees are knocking! Oh nooooooooooo what are we going to do? All that outstanding talent leaving our shores. How could they? Don't they realise the nation is in peril.

So tell me, how would you characterise this 'talent' exactly? I guess negotiating bomb proof bonus schemes is a talent, and of course keeping your job despite engineering global financial catastrophe, that's pretty skilful too. Sort of on a par with a surgeon, or a great educator, an innovative engineer, or a great composer don't you think Justin?

Why Are RBS Bankers Getting Bonuses?

image credit DK Images













It seems that the bankers at the Royal Bank of Scotland are intent on paying themselves massive bonuses out of the cash the taxpayer has given them to sort their abysmally run operations.


The jaw dropping arrogance of these people just underlines their sense of untouchability and distance from the 'real world'

There is much talk at the moment of reviewing the management systems and methods of banking practices. I don't hold out much hope for any major impact because the people involved are imaginative and knowledgeable enough to devise methods to circumvent any attempts to inhibit their excesses.

These people see themselves as Rule Makers not Rule Takers They devote a huge amount of intellectual effort into devising and playing systems. Strip away the facade of the Banker and you see them for what they really are.

If asked asked about their 'job' they will explain what it IS that they do, and provide rationally plausible answers in terms of the mechanics of the financial products they devise and sell. They will never tell you what they really DO, because that would reveal their secret. What they DO is devise financial instruments and methods that are capable of general personal wealth using 'other people's money'


This habit is so ingrained in the Banker's DNA that they are impelled to behave in this way regardless of circumstances. How else can any of them explain the payment of performance bonuses in the current climate? "It's just something we 'DO'. We line our pockets with other people's money don't we! Have you got a problem with that? It's all clearly laid out in our psychological contracts you know!"

And, of course, the next move, if the cash bonus is too crass, will be to 'renumerate' by other methods, 'gifts', shares etc. So let's all watch out for this and stop it too.

Senior bankers need to be hauled before a Parliamentary Committee in order to explain their philosophy and to to justify their intended courses of action. They need to behave like the Civil Servants they have now become. They need to explain why they believe it is OK to take advantage of millions of people on top of the woeful mess they have already created. I can't imagine any of them are capable of answering questions in a satsifactory mannner, because the lack any practice in being forthright and speaking with veracity.

Time for some pig farming and it looks like Farmer Brown is getting his pole axe ready

Gordon Bown Angry At Bonuses

How Can The Royal Bank of Scotland Justify Bonuses

image credit the breakthrough













How on earth can the RBSjustify the payment of millions of pounds in bonuses in any way whatsoever? This is a smack in the mouth for the taxpayer. We've been mugged.

If the government permit this then the government needs voting out.

The RBS claim that they will loose 'talent' if they don't pay the bonuses. Is this the same talent that set up miselling schemes, the foreclosure on mortgages, the pushing of current account upgrade schemes?

This news is offensive. It can only reinforce the arrogance of unscrupulous bank executives and condone their ineptitude. They are manipulating the situation to give the impression of their indispensibility and making us all look very gullible indeed.

We are all being taken advantage of. People in the banking profession should hang their heads in shame. They do nothing of real value to contribute to society. They don't make anything, they don't improve people's health, they don't educate, they don't protect.

They should show a huge amount of humility and gratitude that they are still in work. Paying RBS Bonuses is verging on theft.

The Daily Telegraph describes the feeling perfectly when they say "Bankers have descended...into public odium" I agree the paying of these bonuses stinks.

The Social Psychology of Jade Goody's Health

So how do we rationalise our feelings given the sad news that Jade's illness has progressed? The cost of celebrity means that the private and the public become fused together, and you and I become fused to the celebrity. The cost to the celebrity is perpetual limelight regardless of the circumstances and the cost to us is perpetual involvement whether we ask for it or not.

We become 'involved' in a way that only interconnected media can achieve.

On the one hand many of us will have an image of Jade as a rather boorish, cocky young lady who shot her mouth off in careless ways. On the other hand we are confronted with the tragedy of a fellow human being facing a terrible illness.

Social Psychologists give this the name Cognitive Dissonance the unpleasant feeling we get when we try to reconcile two conflicting 'cognition's'. If you are familiar with Jade how do you feel right now?

Here's Anorak UKs take, and I have to say I wonder what role the media should play in this.

The Press Trust of India reports in a matter of fact way.

I suppose news like this causes us to think about the principals of life. Perhaps the realisation that regardless of the chase for material wealth and fame is folly because it doesn't make us immune to the vagaries of our basic biology.

The other effect Jade's story has on us relates to 'rules of thumb' or heuristics. One type of heuristic is called the Availability Heuristic What this does is make us feel that the more frequently we are aware of something such as Jade's story the more likely it can effect us. This skews our reality and increases personal concern and worry. Now, we can't complain if we've bought into Celebrity. We are gullible if we believe there aren't consequences for ourselves by participating in the Celebrity Circus.

Cognitive Dissonance and The Availibility Heuristic are the cost of the ticket to the show.

Jade's Story

Latest developments on dying in the limelight
Goody family supports OK! tribute

Drug Company or Drug Dealer?

The UK Government are drawing attention to the way in which Drug Company representatives are taking advantage of Doctors by offering 'gifts' as incentives or 'thankyou's' for placing an order. In her recent article Call for end to drug firms' gifts Jane Dreaper reveals how drug companies are enticing Doctors to try their drugs by offering a gift

Where exactly is the difference between this behaviour and the behaviour of street drug pushers?

At the moment the industry code of practice allows:

"drug companies to give small promotional gifts that are relevant to doctors' work, such as pens or surgical gloves."

Just how gullible is the industry?? Have they not read anything of Robert Cialdini's work in influence and persuasion? it is precisely because the gifts are small that they have so much persuasive power!!

The Drug companies are sophisticated commercial enterprises who are clearly familiar with marketing and selling methods. What these small gifts do is tap into a phenomenon known as Reciprocation. This works because no matter how small the gift we feel morally compelled to 'repay the favour' as a way of achieving psychological balance. Not only that once a person has agreed to a small request, they are much more likely to be predisposed to 'up-selling'.Its the same approach that supermarkets use when offering 'taster' samples, or charities do when they send a pen with a donation request. Give somebody an unsolicted gift and they are strongly compelled to return the favour. Do it to enough people and even a small percentage of 'takers' dramatically affects the bottom line.

The real bonus is that the Drug Company sales people are dealing with Doctors. Highly trained professionals such as medical people, accountants, solicitors etc have a well developed sense of their ability to be in control of their decision making. They believe it is impossible for them to be taken advantage of. Chris Argyris covers this in a fascinating Harvard Business Review article called Teaching Smart People How To Learn In the article Argyris explains that professionals firmly believe they are more astute and aware than the average Joe or Josephine and are simply resistant to being duped. They believe they are cognitively 'in control' of the situation and are too smart to be affected by mere sales ploys.

What they underestimate is the emotional, sub conscious effect of techniques such as giving a small gift. Just like the street drug user, they think that they are the one's in control, believing that trying 'just a small amount' keeps them in control. Don't be daft! as soon as you try the sample, accept the freebie you're hooked!

Dr Carol Cooper told the BBC that doctors were professionals and unlikely to be unduly influenced by the drug companies.Accept a small gift and as medical practioners will understand, you take the first step on the 'addiction career path'...Oh dear Carol...they've got you!!!