The International Schools Review Forum

@Illiane_Blues

Sure, thats why we use the word scam to identify them, but a lot of people see them as business opportunities and not scams. People who want to believe them will filter out the scam part, but substituting "poor" is more likely to run up against their paradigms filter. Its language that doesnt trigger their reward path.

Any scam that says something along the lines of 'you can be a miIIionaire' will be met with distrust by anyone with an IQ over 80 that has ever heard of (internet) scams. Let's hope that all IT's on this forum are more than a little bit above that threshold.

@Illiane_Blues

If scams werent persuasive, and worked, and yes, with those with average and better IQs than they wouldnt be scams.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Illiane_Blues
>
> If scams werent persuasive, and worked, and yes, with those with average
> and better IQs than they wouldnt be scams.

Yes, they tend to work on very stupid or very gullible people (big overlap there). They only need a very, very small success rate of course. I think on this forum they won't have much luck, with or without replacing that word.
Anyway, I'd say there are way better methods of preventing this kind spam, but I guess someone thought it was funny.

@Illiane_Blues

So all the Bernard Madof victims were all very stupid people and very gullible? We disagree.

There are better ways, but they are also more costly.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Illiane_Blues
>
> So all the Bernard Madof victims were all very stupid people and very
> gullible? We disagree.
>
> There are better ways, but they are also more costly.


Agree with @Iliane Blues.

Pretty sure Bernie Madoff didn't approached his victims with a post on an online forum.
And yes, gullible.

@Heliotrope

We disagree.

Heliotrope wrote:
> Pretty sure Bernie Madoff didn't approached his victims with a post on an online
> forum.
> And yes, gullible.

@ Heliotrope
Yes, the Madoff investment method was even marketed as "too complicated for outsiders to understand".