upworthy

human behavior

Apollo Robbins steals a man's watch in front of an audience.

It's weird to know that there are people out there who can fool the rest of us completely, manipulating natural human tendencies in order to dupe and deceive. We call these people con artists or crooks—except when they do it for entertainment and we're in on the ploy, in which case we call them sleight of hand artists or magicians.

In many ways, the latter takes more skill. Fooling someone who isn't expecting it is easy compared to fooling someone who knows you're trying to trick them. Masters of the craft are able to trick the average person even as the person watches carefully for signs of trickery, and they do it through the art of misdirection.

sleight of hand, pickpocket, misdirection, Apollo Robbins, human behavior, TED TalkMagic tricks often use misdirection.Photo credit: Canva

Apollo Robbins is one of the world's leading experts on pickpockets, confidence crimes, and deception (being skilled at all of the above himself) and his TED Talk demonstrates exactly how he uses misdirection to dupe not only the man he brings onstage, but the entire audience as well at the same time.

Robbins starts his Talk by asking if the audience thinks it's possible to control someone's attention and predict human behavior. It would be a superpower, wouldn't it? Then he walks audience members through a series of tasks to illustrate how we don't fully use our powers of observation at all times. For instance, he asks everyone to recall what icon they have on the bottom right of their phones and then check to see if they're right. After putting the phones away, he then asks what time was on the screen they just looked at. Most people didn't take note of that because it wasn't where their attention was.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Then he points out that they've all been looking at him for a couple of minutes, so he asks them the close their eyes and recall what he's wearing. "What color is my shirt? What color is my tie?" he asks. These are all tasks meant to illustrate how many things we don't consciously notice or perceive that are right in front of us.

Robbins begins to explain how our brains work and how he is able to manipulate our attention as a limited resource, but then says it's easier just to demonstrate how he does it. He brings a man from the crowd on stage and proceeds to do a series of sleight-of-hand tricks with a poker chip while simultaneously stealing the man's watch and putting it on his own wrist.

But then, at the end of the demonstration, he asks the audience once again what he's wearing. And that's the real mic drop. Woah. (Watch the above video if you haven't yet—spoilers below.)

People were wowed by how fooled they were.

pickpocket, misdirection, Apollo Robbins, human behavior, TED TalkApollo Robbins is an experienced pickpocket.Photo credit: Canva

"So he made it seem like the volunteer was being distracted and we as the audience were watching him be distracted while the magician obviously showed off stealing the volunteer's items, but in actuality we as the audience were being distracted while the magician did a quick change act. Wonderful way to prove the concept!"

"It’s especially great when things like this work on both and audience and the people watching the video."

"'Don’t have to close your eyes this time. What am I wearing' Me:.... It’s rewind time."

"This was mind-boggling, had to replay several times just to understand what was going on. Amazing live performance!"

sleight of hand, card tricks, misdirection, gif, skillSleight of hand tricks often use misdirection.Giphy GIF by Digg

"It's fascinating, that even though you know he is somehow going to 'trick' you, you just can't get over it."

"What he said at the end has stuck with me - 'If you could control someone's attention, what would you do with it?'"

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? If someone can control people's attention for nefarious purposes, can we do something similar for good? Either way, being aware of how our minds work and how our behavior can be manipulated is important to know, and Robbins' TED Talk perfectly demonstrates that.

My husband and I own a short-term rental, and last year a woman rented it for a couple of months straight. She was friendly, personable, and overall a lovely guest. But she asked for things, a lot. Like, all the time. Big things, little things—it seemed like pretty much anything she thought she could possibly ask for, she asked for.

My husband, who manages the property and requests from guests, found himself getting irritated that she was asking for so many things.

"I don't think she expects you to actually say yes to all of these things," I finally told him. "I think she's just an extreme asker."

He looked puzzled. That's when I pulled up this Atlantic article I'd read years ago about how some people are "Askers" and some people are "Guessers" and read it to him.

"Wow," he said after I finished. "That is seriously life-changing."


"Life-changing" is how practically I share this concept with describes it once they understand it. When you hear it explained, it seems so obvious, but it's not something people articulate often.

It's also not particularly scientific. The original Askers vs. Guessers explanation appears to have come from someone's AskMetafilter answer in 2007, but it's since been expanded and expounded upon by various people throughout the years.

Here's the gist of it:

Some people are Askers, and in "ask culture," it's normal and expected to ask directly for the things you want. It's also normal to say no to such requests. Asking culture is upfront, direct, and generally okay with saying no and being told no. If you want something, you simply ask for it without an expectation of any particular answer.

Other people are Guessers, and in "guess culture," you don't ask for things unless you're quite sure the answer will be yes. You might drop hints or make vague allusions to what you want as you try to gauge whether the person would say yes, or even to get an offer without having to ask. If you think the answer might be no, you simply don't ask.

Where Askers and Guessers clash the most is in the saying no part. Askers know sometimes the answer will be no, but they ask anyway. Because Guessers won't ask if the answer might be no, they might assume Askers expect all of their asks to be answered with yes. Saying no is uncomfortable to a Guesser, so being put into the position of having to say no to someone's ask feels rude.

I've had coworkers, family members, and friends say this concept totally changed the way they see and interact with people. Guessers tend to struggle with the bluntness of Askers and feel put off by their directness until they understand that Askers always just ask—the answer doesn't always have to be yes. Askers tend to struggle with the seeming passive aggressiveness of Guessers and get frustrated by their pussyfooting until they understand that asking directly feels rude to them—Guessers just hate putting people in a position of saying "no."

Much has been made about whether Asking vs. Guessing is a family upbringing thing, a cultural thing, or a personality thing, and also about whether one is better than the other. Certainly, some cultures around the world tend to be more direct, while others tend to be less so. The same goes for families, and even certain regions of the country. In my experience as an American, I'd say the U.S. is fairly evenly split between the two tendencies.

Of course, people don't always fit neatly into two distinct categories, and th e relationship we have with people can impact all of this greatly. With people we are close to, we might be more of an Asker than with people we don't know all that well. But overall, understanding the difference between Askers and Guessers can make social situations so much easier to navigate.

For example, let'ss ay you have a coworker who constantly seems to be asking for things or throws ideas your way all the time. They're probably an Asker. They don't necessarily expect you to act on all of their ideas or say yes to what they're asking for. Or let's say you have a neighbor who starts talking about their vacation plans and mentions they're worried about their plants not getting enough water while they're gone. They might be a Guesser who wants to ask you to water for them. They just don't want to ask you directly.

The woman who rented our place was an extreme example of an Asker, and after my husband (who is a Guesser) got that, he found it so much easier to interact with her. He understood she wasn't expecting a yes with every ask, so her questions didn't feel so rude. And sure enough, when he was clear about what we could and couldn't accommodate, she was totally unfazed by the things he said no to.

Life-changing, seriously.

Imagine you're all alone in a low-lit parking lot when a big, white robot rolls up to you and offers its protection.

Congratulations: You just met the Knightscope K5, the latest in pre-crime technology!



Weirder things have happened, right? I mean, not many weirder things, but definitely some weirder things. GIF via Knightscope/YouTube.

It might look like the lovechild of R2-D2 and a Dalek, but the K5 is actually the world's first "autonomous data machine." (At least according to the press materials.)

What this actually means is that it roves around parking lots in Silicon Valley using facial recognition software to identify potential criminals, broadcasting massive amounts of information back to the company's private data center, and generally policing through (admittedly adorable) intimidation.

And what's more, this shiny robot cop can be rented out for as low as $6.25 an hour.


All in a day's work. GIF from "Robocop."

Are you feeling like you're living in the future yet? 'Cause the K5 ain't the only tech that allegedly stops crime before it happens.

Back in 2008, the Department of Homeland Security created the Fast Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST. Originally known as Project Hostile Intent (can't imagine why they changed it?), this data-crunching program uses physiological and behavioral patterns to identify individuals with potential to commit violent crimes.

And in September 2015, Hitachi released its fancy new Predictive Crime Analytics, which uses thousands of different factors from weather patterns to word usage in social media posts to identify when and where the next crime could happen.

"We're trying to provide tools for public safety so that [law enforcement is] armed with more information on who's more likely to commit a crime," explained Darrin Lipscomb, one of the creators of this crime-monitoring technology, in a Fast Company article.

He also said, "A human just can't handle when you get to the tens or hundreds of variables that could impact crime."

Sounds an awful lot like a certain Spielberg action movie starring a pre-couch-jumping Tom Cruise.


Speaking of curious behavioral patterns... GIF from "Minority Report."

So what are we waiting for? Let's use all this awesome new technology to put a stop to crime before it starts!

Except ... it's not "crime" if it hasn't happened, is it? You can't arrest someone for trying every car door in the parking lot, even if you do feel pretty confident that they're looking for an open one so they can search inside for things to steal.

And even then: How can you tell the difference between a thief, a homeless person looking for a place to sleep, or someone who just got confused about which car was theirs?

GIF from "Robocop."

Besides: What if the algorithms used in this pre-crime technology are just as biased as human behavior?

Numbers don't lie. But numbers also exist within a context, which means the bigger picture might not be as black and white as you'd think.

Consider the stop-and-frisk policies that currently exist in cities like New York or the TSA screening process at the airport. Those in favor might argue that if black and Muslim Americans are more likely to commit violent crimes, then it makes sense to treat them with extra caution. Those opposed would call that racial profiling.

As for the supposedly objective predictive robot cops? Based on the data available to them, they'd probably rule in favor of racial profiling.

Author/blogger Cory Doctorow explains this problem pretty succinctly:

"The data used to train the algorithm comes from the outcomes of the biased police activity. If the police are stop-and-frisking brown people, then all the weapons and drugs they find will come from brown people. Feed that to an algorithm and ask it where the police should concentrate their energies, and it will dispatch those cops to the same neighborhoods where they've always focused their energy, but this time with a computer-generated racist facewash that lets them argue that they're free from bias."


See how quickly this spirals downward? GIF from "Robocop."

Pre-crime measures might make us feel safer. But they could lead to some even scarier scenarios.

By trying to stop crimes before they happen, we actually end up causing more crime. Just look at all the wonderful work that law enforcement agencies have already done by inadvertently creating terrorists and freely distributing child pornography.

The threat of surveillance from robots and data analysts might stop a handful of crimes, but it also opens up a bigger can of worms about what, exactly, a crime entails.

Because if you think you have "nothing to hide," well, tell that to the disproportionate number of black people imprisoned for marijuana or any of the men who've been arrested in the last few years for consensual sex with another man. (And remember that not too long ago, interracial sex was illegal, too.)


Do you really want these guys showing up at your house when you're trying to get it on? GIF from "Doctor Who."

Hell, if you've ever faked a sick day or purchased a lobster of a certain size, you've committed a felony.

The truth is, we've all committed crimes. And we've probably done it more often than we realized.

Don't get me wrong. It's certainly exciting to see people use these innovative new technologies to make the world safer. But there are others ways to stop crime before it starts without infringing on our civil rights.

For starters, we can fix the broken laws still on the books and create communities that care instead of cultivating fear. There'd be a lot less crime if we just looked after each other.