This simple reframing of how I view myself feels pretty significant’: Jamie Waters. Photograph: Pål Hansen/The Observer
Dr. Nate Zinsser, a top US army psychologist renowned for helping lieutenants and officers build their confidence, is giving me a talking-to. We’ve been discussing highly disciplined writers who sit at their desks at 9am each day, no matter the circumstances, and assertively punch out stories.
“I definitely don’t do that,” I say, remarking that I envy their confidence to sit and deliver. An aggressive perfectionist streak combined with niggling impostor syndrome insecurities mean I need conditions to be just-so in order to have faith that I’ll produce anything decent. Zinsser blanches.
“The statement ‘I don’t do that’ is a decision you’re making about yourself,” he says, speaking over video call from his office at the US Military Academy in upstate New York; behind him there’s a whiteboard, ornamental Japanese swords and photos of athletes he’s counselled, including the Olympic-medal-winning US men’s bobsled team.
Delivered with a gentle assuredness, rather than barked across the screen, it’s not the tone you might expect from a man who for 27 years has directed the academy’s performance psychology programme. Indeed, the only thing about him that screams “army” is his black jacket, which has the word emblazoned in capitals across its front….Continue reading….
A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their trust. Confidence tricks exploit victims using a combination of the victim’s credulity, naïveté, compassion, vanity, confidence, irresponsibility, and greed. Researchers have defined confidence tricks as “a distinctive species of fraudulent conduct … intending to further voluntary exchanges that are not mutually beneficial”, as they “benefit con operators (‘con men’) at the expense of their victims (the ‘marks‘)”.
Synonyms include con, confidence game, confidence scheme, ripoff, scam, and stratagem. The perpetrator of a confidence trick (or “con trick”) is often referred to as a confidence (or “con”) man, con artist, or a “grifter“. The shell game dates back at least to Ancient Greece. William Thompson (1821–1856) was the original “confidence man”. Thompson was a clumsy swindler who asked his victims to express confidence in him by giving him money or their watch rather than gaining their confidence in a more nuanced way.
A few people trusted Thompson with their money and watches. Thompson was arrested in July 1849. Reporting about this arrest, James Houston, a reporter for the New York Herald, publicized Thompson by naming him the “Confidence Man”. Although Thompson was an unsuccessful scammer, he gained the reputation as a genius operator mostly because Houston’s satirical tone was not understood as such. The National Police Gazette coined the term “confidence game” a few weeks after Houston first used the name “confidence man”.
A confidence trick is also known as a con game, a finesse, a con, a scam, a grift, a hustle, a bunko (or bunco), a swindle, a flimflam, a gaffle, or a bamboozle. The intended victims are known as marks, suckers, stooges, mugs, rubes, or gulls (from the word gullible). When accomplices are employed, they are known as shills. A short con or “small con” is a fast swindle which takes just minutes, possibly seconds. It typically aims to rob the victim of money or other valuables which they carry on their person or are guarding.
A “long con” or “big con” (also, chiefly British English: long game) is a scam that unfolds over several days or weeks; it may involve a team of swindlers, and even props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted lines. It aims to rob the victim of huge sums of money or valuables, often by getting them to empty out banking accounts and borrow from family members.
In Confessions of a Confidence Man, Edward H. Smith lists the “six definite steps or stages of growth” of a confidence game. He notes that some steps may be omitted. It is also possible some can be done in a different order than the one shown or carried out simultaneously. Preparations are made in advance of the game, including the hiring of any assistants required and studying the background knowledge needed for the role.The victim is approached or contacted.
The victim is given an opportunity to profit from participating in a scheme. The victim’s greed is encouraged, such that their rational judgment of the situation might be impaired. The victim receives a small payout as a demonstration of the scheme’s purported effectiveness. This may be a real amount of money or faked in some way (including physically or electronically). In a gambling con, the victim is allowed to win several small bets. In a stock market con, the victim is given fake dividends.
A sudden manufactured crisis or change of events forces the victim to act or make a decision immediately. This is the point at which the con succeeds or fails. With a financial scam, the con artist may tell the victim that the “window of opportunity” to make a large investment in the scheme is about to suddenly close forever.
A conspirator (in on the con, but assumes the role of an interested bystander) puts an amount of money into the same scheme as the victim, to add an appearance of legitimacy. This can reassure the victim, and give the con man greater control when the deal has been completed.
In addition, some games require a “corroboration” step, particularly those involving a fake, but purportedly “rare item” of “great value”. This usually includes the use of an accomplice who plays the part of an uninvolved (initially skeptical) third party, who later confirms the claims made by the con man. Cons succeed for inducing judgment errors—chiefly, errors arising from imperfect information and cognitive biases.
In popular culture and among professional con men, the human vulnerabilities that cons exploit are depicted as ‘dishonesty’, ‘greed’, and ‘gullibility’ of the marks. Dishonesty, often represented by the expression ‘you can’t cheat an honest man’, refers to the willingness of marks to participate in unlawful acts, such as rigged gambling and embezzlement.
Greed, the desire to ‘get something for nothing’, is a shorthand expression of marks’ beliefs that too-good-to-be-true gains are realistic. Gullibility reflects beliefs that marks are ‘suckers’ and ‘fools’ for entering into costly voluntary exchanges. Judicial opinions occasionally echo these sentiments.
Accomplices, also known as shills, help manipulate the mark into accepting the perpetrator’s plan. In a traditional confidence trick, the mark is led to believe that he will be able to win money or receive some benefits by doing some task. The accomplices may pretend to be strangers who have benefited from performing similar tasks in the past.
- “Con Men and Their Enablers: The Anatomy of Confidence Games”.
- “The long game”.
- Confessions of a Confidence Man: A Handbook for Suckers.
- Crimes-of-persuasion.com Archived
- “Internet Crime Report, 2021”
- Scammers are Winning: € 41.3 ($ 47.8) Billion lost in Scams, up 15%”.
- “ScamAlert – Bringing you the latest scam info”.
- Confidence rises as Blanton takes top spot on depth chart
Marketing Programs You May Like: