Thread: The Ethics of Ripping Off Newagers

If somebody believes in something and you don't, is it ethical to sell it to them?

The concrete example that I'm thinking of is something called Emotional Freedom Technique. It's some bullshit cooked up by this douchebag Brad Yates. He has all these newagers tapping on their foreheads, chanting "I'm not worthy", and paying him $40 to listen to recordings of him talking people through it. The people that are actually being talked through it are (if I understand) paying quite a bit more. He talks about how it's using ancient chinese pressure points or some such bullshit.

On the one hand, I think he's a reprehensible creep.

On the other hand, I think it's a very elegant system. Let me repeat: He has people paying him to tap themselves on the forehead and chant "I'm not worthy." It's like he made a bet that he could get someone to do it and won. And they pay him money for it. Is there a case to be made that someone that's willing to do that deserves to get ripped off?

Personally, I think it's a bit of a dick-move.

EDIT: Ffs, keep forgetting to not add color tags. >_>

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Is there a case to be made that someone that's willing to do that deserves to get ripped off?

As a former telemarketer, I can tell you that this is a very popular philosophy, in sales. Most of the people I have worked with have no remorse about exploiting those who are "dumb enough to get ripped off," but it always left a bad taste in my mouth (so much so that -as I got older and wiser - I had to get out of the industry as quickly as I could afford to). The fact of the matter is that, with enough persuasion, anybody can be manipulated into anything. If someone has a do-gooder attitude, and you cook up a thorough story about how your house burned to the ground (with some creative props/pictures for evidence), you can scam them out of money, even if they aren't the dumbest people on the planet. But in the sales game, cut-throat sales reps thrive on those kinds of 'poor saps,' because they are 'easy money.'

But, to me, it is no different from snatching up purses at the grocery store, from some old woman who set it in her buggy and happened to take her eyes off of it for a moment. I mean, if she was dumb enough not to watch her purse, she deserves to have it stolen, right? That is the mentality of most (not all) of the people who do these types of things. Used car salesmen, 'snake oil' salesmen, cold-call telemarketers, etc. They are the types that will smile in your face and tell you everything you want to hear, and then - when you're out of earshot - will turn right around and tell their colleagues what a fucking moron you are.

Coming from someone who's done it for quite some time, I can tell you that it is a horrible, soul-eating way to make a living.

I don't think it's ethical, he's taking advantage of weak minded people, it's just like the church only a little bit funnier. Kinda wanna see a video of this.

There are plenty of things just as bad going on in normal business as well.

Saying that this is ethical leads down a slippery slope pretty fast. This reminds me of this crazy globalist cult I've been looking into lately called Desteni.

The idea of deserving things seems kinda of misleading to me as well, it's based in human expectations which don't mirror reality perfectly.In my opinion people who take advantage of weak minded people like this(like the church and the state) are the ones who deserve to be robbed, since they are robbing people themselves. It's a matter of opinion who deserves what.

But at the same time maybe if these people got ripped off they would stop believing in new age nonsense.

Given the example, I would say that you shouldn't be doing stuff like that. It is morally wrong to sell stuff you know doesn't work and is bullshit, just to make a profit. To answer the bigger question though, I think in some cases it is alright to sell stuff you don't believe in. For example you can sell a bible without believing in it. You can sell tin foil to someone who wants to cover their head in it to protect them from aliens.

Selling a product to someone who wants it, even if you don't believe in it, is okay. Making something up then manipulating people into buying it, is totally different though.

It would depend on the person's value system, and according to mine it would be unethical. There is a sickening greed for money that some people seem to have (people in business?), and those people would be the type willing to do that. Personally, of course I value money, but it would take a lot to be worth hurting someone else somehow, or giving up some other more important value. And some values I wouldn't give up for any amount of money. I might partake in a small telemarketting scam if I was only taking about $5 from someone but somehow gaining a billion myself, or I might endure excrutiating physical pain for 30 seconds to gain the same amount. But there is no amount of money I'd, say, murder someone or prostitute myself for.

The "I'm not worthy" part surprises me. I thought it's religion that usually takes up that attitude, while new-agey fads are more likely to take an "I'm worthy and can do anything!" stance.

And I agree with Alric that there's no problem with selling items that you know someone else wants, even if you don't believe in whatever meaning might be behind it. I'd have no problem selling a crystal ball or bible or tickets to a Depak Chopera lecture to someone who already believes in that stuff. It's actively trying to convince someone to believe in something or to create an extension off of what they already believe (like 'you believe in spiritual healing energy? Well, these crystals are supposed to increase your energy') , for the purpose of self-interest, that I have a problem with.

I agree with the two posters above.

Trying to convince someone of bullshit in order to sell them something is wrong. It is wrong because it harms the victims and jades all parties involved, causing them to be more likely to harm others for personal gain. It is an evil that spreads.

I think a big problem with having a highly competitive world like the one we're currently living in is that it nurtures this sort of destructive mindset. If you were given a choice between starving to death and stealing to survive, which would you choose? We cannot possibly expect moral behavior in a world in which everyone is forced to fight each other to survive and prosper. Since most people want to see themselves as good, they create reasons to justify their behavior so they can maintain that positive image. Personally, I don't see people who succumb to such behavior as bad or evil, I see them as victims of a flawed society.

Relevant:
-Just World Phenomenon
-Cognitive Dissonance

I used to buy into it and use EFT, because I was very depressed and desperate for any kind of cure. I was crying before I found an EFT for depression video on YouTube. All the comments were saying that they really felt their depression melt away, so I gave it a shot. I didn't feel that different afterwards, but again, I was desperate to have SOMETHING help me, so I kept at it and learned all about it.

By the way, I have NO idea where you're getting an "I'm not worthy" chant, as that's clearly the opposite of what it's claiming to do. You're supposed to say positive affirmations like you ARE worthy and love yourself regardless while you tap. Plus, I thought the founder was Gary Craig.

Anyway, the only thing I actually wasted money on was a personal EFT session with a local EFT specialist (or whatever the fancy word for someone who specializes in something that is COMPLETELY escaping my brain right now). After that, when I still didn't notice any change, I started to doubt it beyond any excuses and gave up on it.

So no, I don't think anyone deserves to be treated like crap just because they're maybe more naive or think differently than you do. As Black Eagle said, there's no excuse to be a heartless, jaded bully.

Originally Posted by stonedape

But at the same time maybe if these people got ripped off they would stop believing in new age nonsense.

That's part of what's so elegant about this system though. The person that I know who's into it does the "Sales Beyond Belief" and "Money Beyond Belief" series. At least they're appropriately named. But on the days when he sells a lot, he gives all the credit to the "tapping" and on the days when he doesn't sell a lot, he blames it on him not feeling like he's worthy. Never is it "I did a good today" or "The tapping let me down." It's pretty much just like the whole religious savior thing. If something good happens, it's the saviors blessings and if something bad happens, it's our own fault. We're never supposed to feel that we did good.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

The "I'm not worthy" part surprises me. I thought it's religion that usually takes up that attitude, while new-agey fads are more likely to take an "I'm worthy and can do anything!" stance.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

By the way, I have NO idea where you're getting an "I'm not worthy" chant, as that's clearly the opposite of what it's claiming to do. You're supposed to say positive affirmations like you ARE worthy and love yourself regardless while you tap. Plus, I thought the founder was Gary Craig.

I think you're right about the founder. Brad Yates just seems to be some schmuck that's milking it hard on the internet. The idea of the "I'm not worthy" is that by "tapping" when it's said, the intention of the belief is somehow reduced and mitigated. So a lot of the chants will begin with something like "Even though I'm not worthy...". It does get into the affirming stuff eventually but it takes its time getting there and always seems to focus on tearing the practitioner down.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

I used to buy into it and use EFT, because I was very depressed and desperate for any kind of cure. I was crying before I found an EFT for depression video on YouTube. All the comments were saying that they really felt their depression melt away, so I gave it a shot. I didn't feel that different afterwards, but again, I was desperate to have SOMETHING help me, so I kept at it and learned all about it.

This is why I think these guys are schmucks. They're selling a useless product to people that need real help. If it was just people like my roommate that are trying to get more money it would be one thing but somebody suffering from depression should get real help and not a scam.

I find this sort of thing extremely unethical.

Unfortunately there are people that are so stupid and/or ignorant that they'll believe anything.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I find this sort of thing extremely unethical.

Unfortunately there are people that are so stupid and/or ignorant that they'll believe anything.

Exactly. Enough said.

Well what do you mean by 'ripping' someone off?

If you are talking about fraud, then sure it is unethical.
If you aren't talking about fraud then you can't 'rip' someone off since trade requires a reverse inequality in wants. That is what people like ClouD don't understand which is why he thinks everyone who makes money is being dishonest in some fashion. A reserve inequality in wants goes something like this:

Let us say person A has a stockpile of peanut butter, a stockpile indicating that they have an overabundance of the peanut butter. Now let us say person A runs into person B. Person B has a stockpile of chocolate, a stockpile indicating that they have an overabundance of chocolate. Person A, desiring a new product or perhaps for some subjective desire, desires chocolate and Person B feels the same. If Person A and/or Person B didn't feel this desire then the trade wouldn't of taken place unless under the threat of coercion but that is another matter. So Person A desires chocolate but has peanut butter and Person B desires peanut butter but has chocolate. Thus the reserve inequality in wants.

Person A: Doesn't want peanut butter, wants chocolate
Person B: Doesn't want chocolate, wants peanut butter

In order for there to be a trade B must have what A wants and A must have what B wants. Therefore, you cannot 'rip' someone off in a non-fraudulent manner.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well what do you mean by 'ripping' someone off?

If you are talking about fraud, then sure it is unethical.
If you aren't talking about fraud then you can't 'rip' someone off since trade requires a reverse inequality in wants. That is what people like ClouD don't understand which is why he thinks everyone who makes money is being dishonest in some fashion. A reserve inequality in wants goes something like this:

Let us say person A has a stockpile of peanut butter, a stockpile indicating that they have an overabundance of the peanut butter. Now let us say person A runs into person B. Person B has a stockpile of chocolate, a stockpile indicating that they have an overabundance of chocolate. Person A, desiring a new product or perhaps for some subjective desire, desires chocolate and Person B feels the same. If Person A and/or Person B didn't feel this desire then the trade wouldn't of taken place unless under the threat of coercion but that is another matter. So Person A desires chocolate but has peanut butter and Person B desires peanut butter but has chocolate. Thus the reserve inequality in wants.

Person A: Doesn't want peanut butter, wants chocolate
Person B: Doesn't want chocolate, wants peanut butter

In order for there to be a trade B must have what A wants and A must have what B wants. Therefore, you cannot 'rip' someone off in a non-fraudulent manner.

You are ignorant of another factor; people being sold ideas with products. Ideas that make or break a product.

You're the typical person I'd want to sell to, someone who sees it as black and white. You think people buy only what they explicitly want and everyone is dandy.
You have less power than you think as a consumer, the grey zone sales pitch controls your interpretations and desires if you're ignorant of it.

Originally Posted by ClouD

You are ignorant of another factor; people being sold ideas with products. Ideas that make or break a product.

Well these ideas are subjective to each individual. Let us say I buy an umbrella. Now an umbrella is commonly bought to prevent rain from soaking an individual but let us say I am a novice of fencing and I buy this umbrella because I want to practice my swordplay on the street without arousing attention by using an actual sword. What people buy and how they use a product is dependent solely on that individual so its not so much that I am ignorant of that factor, its just that there is no way to account for it unless asked by the individual buying it. It's called use-value.

If you think my umbrella example is cheesy then I will offer you one better. Let us say I buy a Smith & Weston 6 shooter and put it on my wall. Now people commonly buy guns to utilize them in some manner such as using them in a firing range or for self-defense and yet here I am not using a weapon in that manner but as a piece of decor. It's like using a pencil to kill someone or using a bed sheet as a piece of clothing.

Originally Posted by ClouD

You're the typical person I'd want to sell to, someone who sees it as black and white. You think people buy only what they explicitly want and everyone is dandy.
You have less power than you think as a consumer, the grey zone sales pitch controls your interpretations and desires if you're ignorant of it.

Can you provide an example of someone who buys something that they don't actually want ex ante in an voluntary exchange? I'd really like to see someone break one of the laws of economics.

Making lots of money has never been about an honest career.

It's about illusions and deception -- utilising the illusion of currency and clever marketing to give the impression that something is worth more than what it actually is (comparatively).

Cola sold for "refreshment", just brown sugar water that is marketed deceptively. Mediocre music, marketed with sex-appeal and pseudo fame [see: teen singers]. Religion, marketed that it actually does ANYTHING aside the placebo, with delusional and false testimonials.

Unethical? Not IMO. Your fault to get ripped off? Yes. Consider though, are you really getting ripped off if you believe you aren't?

I don't think it's unethical.
In the case of selling new age crap. I've even thought of doing it myself. Set up an acupuncture clinic or something lol
The reason why I don't think it's unethical is because people actually believe it works for them.
Of course it's all placebo but people feel better and they're willing to pay for that. So what's the problem?

It also creates a whole subset of people who can gather together at conventions and such. Most people need that. I think it's quite nice.

But what some people are talking about is Person A giving half his peanut butter for ALL of Person B's Chocolate.
It's off topic from the OP but yeah.

Originally Posted by tommo

But what some people are talking about is Person A giving half his peanut butter for ALL of Person B's Chocolate.
It's off topic from the OP but yeah.

The exchange ratio is setup during the trade. The principle remains. If I have to give 5 jars of peanut butter to get 1 jar of chocolate then my subjective desires show that I value 1 jar of chocolate more then 5 jars of peanut butter.

*sigh* Ok then a better analogy would be 5 jars of inferior quality peanut butter for 5 jars of chocolate. When the peanut butter buyer thinks the quality is good.

Originally Posted by tommo

*sigh* Ok then a better analogy would be 5 jars of inferior quality peanut butter for 5 jars of chocolate. When the peanut butter buyer thinks the quality is good.

Firstly, what is inferior is a subjective view during economic transactions. Secondly, you are skimming the boundaries of fraud. How does the peanut butter buyer know 'it's good' and how does one define 'good.' Now if I buy the peanut butter and it has a taste I dislike or its too crunchy or creamy, that isn't fraud. That is simply the discovery that I regret the discussion I made before. I can regret my decision after but during the process of trade I value what I am getting ( peanut butter ) over what I am giving ( chocolate )

A better analogy than that would be 40 dollars for jack-shit. Oh wait. That's not an analogy...

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

A better analogy than that would be 40 dollars for jack-shit. Oh wait. That's not an analogy...

Well that is how you view it but some may see the value of knowledge as being more valuable then the 40 dollars. There may be a whole host of reasons for why they did it and whether or not they thought it was a valuable trade. What is undeniable is that there is a reverse inequality in terms of wants. You can quibble about how they felt after the trade but not that they wanted or didn't want the trade.

LMAO philosopher, so true.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well that is how you view it but some may see the value of knowledge as being more valuable then the 40 dollars. There may be a whole host of reasons for why they did it and whether or not they thought it was a valuable trade. What is undeniable is that there is a reverse inequality in terms of wants. You can quibble about how they felt after the trade but not that they wanted or didn't want the trade.

The point is, is that it's not knowledge. It's just fantasy.
What about if you sell a bottle of "miracle water" and the person doesn't want to buy it, but you manipulate them in to believing it's better than normal water?

What I was getting at with the inferior peanut butter was this....
You tell the person it is high quality peanut butter but it is really 50/50 peanuts/bananas.

Originally Posted by tommo

LMAO philosopher, so true.

The point is, is that it's not knowledge. It's just fantasy.
What about if you sell a bottle of "miracle water" and the person doesn't want to buy it, but you manipulate them in to believing it's better than normal water?

What I was getting at with the inferior peanut butter was this....
You tell the person it is high quality peanut butter but it is really 50/50 peanuts/bananas.

Again, you are interjecting your subjective views on an economic transaction. It would be like you saying "Don't they understand vanilla is better then chocolate!? Omg!" You have no idea whether they consider it knowledge, you can only infer it onto yourself. "Do I believe that this is valuable knowledge?" If you said yes then you would made the exchange, if you said no then you wouldn't of made the exchange.

Concerning your comment on 'miracle water,' if the seller says that it cures cancer or turns you into superman then that is fraudulent. If they say 'this is great stuff! It has a panacea of flavor!' and you buy the water then discover it is not to your liking then that isn't fraudulent.

Concerning your comment on the ratio of peanuts to bananas, high quality doesn't necessarily mean content. It usually does but high quality could also mean how they mix it, handle it, what they put into it, and a whole other host of things. And again, high quality is a subjective viewpoint when it comes to economic transactions. I might think JIF peanut butter is low quality while someone from Africa might think it is high quality. This also shows the influx of prices in the marketplace.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Again, you are interjecting your subjective views on an economic transaction. It would be like you saying "Don't they understand vanilla is better then chocolate!? Omg!"

This is a bad analogy. Preferred flavor could be taken as a definition of subjective if you're into definition by example. The question of if some procedure is more effective than placebo is quite firmly in the realm of the objective.