To think that it IS a *bit* stupid to give £1000s to someone you haven't met?

[StrawberryTeaLeaf]

I'm just listening to Woman's Hour on catch up and there is yet more coverage of the dating scams and an interview with a police officer. Yet again, as often lately, she (and Jane Garvey) are at huge pains to say that falling for these scams is not a sign of stupidity.

It is a bit, though, isn't it?

Isn't it slightly daft to keep insisting otherwise just to spare some blushes?

It is all psychology. As a person who has difficulties with saying "No" in general, I think it hasn't much to do with intelligence. If those people were asked, outside of context, whether they would do X, they would likely see that it is stupid.

I have been conned into doing something very stupid by exploiting my inability to say no to people - was a molester rather than a con artist, though.
You immediately realize what happened once you are outside of the person's influence.

Vestal your post reminded me that essentially these longer financial cons are about grooming the victims. We wouldn't call someone who'd been groomed into sexual abuse stupid but this is the tendency when it's financial abuse (even when it's linked to sexual/emotional/physical abuse). It's quite insidious and I think people are right to question the language we use around it.

The other sentence that crops up again and again is "It could happen to anyone".

Is that really true? It doesn't feel true to me. I'm convinced I wouldn't hand over money.

If other people feel similarly are we all arrogant wrong? Are we not listening properly to the warnings as a consequence?

Maybe you are right to call it 'grooming' clock. I'm not sure.

As well as not being able to say no -thinking about it a bit more - part of what the conmen work on is that is hard to confront someone with a lie -tell someone you don't believe them.
If you suspected someone you knew was lying to you would you find it easy to tell them openly - I think you are a liar, I don't trust or believe you?

I know I would find it hard -unless I had overwhelming evidence that they were lying I would be hesitant to confront someone.
If someone asked you to borrow money -how many people would just say No outright ? Or would you make excuses (white lies) - sorry I'm a bit tight this month etc?

In these cases the conmen have probably already know their victims have money...have ascertained there is no reason why they couldn't give them the money...so if the victim doesn't the only reason is because they don't trust them /think they are lying ...

I totally get what you are saying, OP. I can never get my head around it either.

Naïve is probably a better word than stupid though as Maryz suggests. Vulnerable too. These fraudsters are scum who set out to prey on people when they are at their most vulnerable.

I think if you're ill or elderly and confused...but otherwise I also get confused.

I wouldn't hand over my life savings to someone I knew though! In fact, the concept of handing over even a small amount of money baffles me.

But I think the problem is that they DO feel they "know" this person. Not having met them in real life is pretty immaterial. If they feel they have formed a relationship then there is a kind of trust there. Yes, it's naive, but it's no different to a scammer in the past who would form a physical relationship with the person.

I agree that it's not the case "it could happen to anyone" in that if I (or, I think, most internet savvy people) got involved with a person romantically online, you would get pretty shirty pretty quickly if they wouldn't actually meet you, but for somebody who is naive they can probably spin some kind of convincing explanation.

I wouldn't berate teenagers for meeting online friends as long as they did it safely, I did it and I don't think there's any harm in meeting somebody. Handing over money to somebody is different, even if you think you know them well.

I'm pretty sure this kind of scam/abuse also happens to people who form the relationships in person, to be fair, it's not some unique online phenomenon.

Of course it could happen to anyone.

The only differences are in the amount of setting up, or grooming, you'd require. Humans who are vulnerable for some reason are easier to set up, so that's why they're targeted more often. Recent bereavement really fucks up your judgement - and bereavement does happen to everyone.

Bear in mind that any one of the qualities you consider 'good' is a vulnerability to a thief.

And even if you're the most selfish, suspicious & uncaring bastard in the world, your selfishness is an exploitable vulnerability.

maybe I'm ultra suspicious but I'm glad I am

I don't even answer the door to someone I don't know - giving bank details to a charity via a door salesperson just wouldn't happen. (I actually think they should be banned as a nuisance, same as chuggers).

I am particularly annoyed ATM with charities sending mailings with personalised address labels- can't even put them through the shredder FFS!

I think if you're ill or elderly and confused...but otherwise I also get confused.

It's what's different about the dating scams, isn't it? The 'victims' are younger on average than other scams which tend to target the elderly.

Interesting discussion! I think grooming is the right word, and I do think - I actually overheard somebody saying this in a pub near my college - that we believe people are inherently at fault when they've been scammed. Like we assume it was their 'own fault.'

As for the ultra-suspicious thing; I think that assumption is a bit naive. For the record, I consider myself that way too...but then I think about it a different way. Perhaps the 'me' now wouldn't do it, but then I think to myself: what if something terrible happened to me? what if someone broke up with me really badly, or I lost someone really suddenly? Putting myself in those kind of vulnerable situations, it suddenly becomes easier to understand. After mulling that over, I realise I don't feel so confident in my own absolutely unshakeable strength. Then, maybe, I could be conned.

There's also the aspect of wanting to believe, I don't doubt it.

Unfortunately my father was a scam artist and I used to find it completely incredible that people fell for his bull but I think that the majority of people as basically decent and so assume other people are too.
Interestingly one of the mums at school really reminded me of him in some ways, she went through cancer and a couple f other health scares, got people involved in failed businesses etc and all the time when everyone else was running around after her I kept some distance, which was hard as she was VERY charismatic.
She's now in prison for fraud. Most people found it impossible to believe that she would be capable of what she did but I started from the position of not trusting anyone

The dating scams work because there is so much propaganda about women's 'need' for a romantic relationship with a man, and so many narratives about how women need to 'learn to trust' and 'love overcomes all your problems. If you are lonely or otherwise vulnerable, it's more appealing to believe that this man really understands you, really needs you, and there will be a happy ending.

Bear in mind that any one of the qualities you consider 'good' is a vulnerability to a thief.

And even if you're the most selfish, suspicious & uncaring bastard in the world, your selfishness is an exploitable vulnerability.

I'm not sure I completely agree Garlick.

Strict rules such as the Green Cross Code, not leaving your drink unattended, not accepting lifts from strangers, not holding first dates at your house, not drinking and driving - that kind of thing - need to be hard-wired irrespective or personal qualities don't they?

That's what a public awareness message should be aiming for, isn't it?

If it was widely understood that sending money to someone you don't know was as unwise (as 'stupid') as drink driving or accepting a lift from a stranger then the debates about the personal qualities that might allow you to be manipulated into doing the silly thing would occupy a different space from the (main) message that it IS a big no-no.

And it would be easier to say 'No' because the stupidity of saying 'Yes' would be a socially accepted thing.

of personal qualities...

I'm amazed anyone falls for the dating scams but plenty of people do. I'm sure it wouldn't happen to me. I'm very cautious and double and triple check things, I'm also happy to be embarrassing and ask for verification of someone's credentials. I'm very polite about it but anyone who is genuine shouldn't mind.

I think falling for some of the telephone scams such as the recent wave of TalkTalk inspired scams is more understandable. With the TalkTalk scams the scammers have lots of your private details so I can see how people think they are legitimate callers.

I've watched Catfish with my DC and we sit there in disbelief at how daft trusting people are. It's terrible when vulnerable people are involved.

I'm amazed when MNs give money to other MNs who are allegedly skint. I'm sure some of them are genuine but I won't risk it. It would be incredibly easy to write an OP that would generate donations. You would have to phrase it just so so that it doesn't seem grabby or too obvious. I bet I could do it.

I prefer to give to specific charities where I know the money will get to someone who needs it.

What's Catfish?

kitsnicket "what if something terrible happened to me? what if someone broke up with me really badly, or I lost someone really suddenly? "

plenty of us still wouldn't afterwards though and plenty of people have been broken up with horribly and still wouldn't.

Also at some point, "me" has to mean "me" not an alternative version because then you're in the old Bob Monkhouse joke! "(my wife said to me, Bob, you're just not yourself - and I said, why are you telling me then?!)

A catfish is someone who pretends to be someone they're not, using Facebook or other social media to create false identities, particularly to pursue deceptive online romances.

I have thought the same OP.

Mind you, the few academics I know are as daft as a brush.

"People make bad choices if they're sad or scared or stressed." - Frozen

we believe people are inherently at fault when they've been scammed. Like we assume it was their 'own fault.'

Yes. It's magical thinking, similar to blaming rape or assault victims.

As long as you can feel sure there's a set of protective behaviours (or behaviours to avoid) which guarantee your personal safety, then you believe you have taken all possible measures and will never fall prey. By extension, this means those who are victimised must have failed. So they're stupid, brought it on themselves, and so forth.

It makes sense to take protective measures where reasonably possible. The magical part is where you believe you've made yourself invulnerable. There's no such thing as guaranteed safety. People who can't stand that thought are welcome to believe in their 'magic charms', but it'd be nice if they didn't sneer at those who've found out they don't always work.

If it was widely understood that sending money to someone you don't know was unwise (stupid)

Seriously? You never send money to people you don't know? How do you pay your bills? Never shop in markets, always pay cash and wait for the receipt? What if you buy a second-hand car - there's absolutely no way to guarantee it's not bent.

We trust strangers hundreds of times a day. You'd go mad if you didn't - and I doubt whether you could even muddle through in life without trusting any strangers. It's nothing like drinking & driving, which can be a straight "never".