Confidence, man

Last updated on: November 8, 2021 at 11:10 am by Fred Clark

Confidence, man 2021-11-08T11:10:34-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

• The previous post got me lost down an internet rabbit hole on the world of con artists and scams. I’m fascinated by the (evil) ingenuity the schemes in this “List of confidence tricks,” but much of this seems to come from a bygone world.

Consider, for example, the “Baltimore stockbroker.” This involves an extensive, patient, weeks-long set-up. In some variations, that can mean chatting up the crowd in 64 different bars. Or it may mean sending 4,096 emails one week, and then 2,048 the next, and 1,024 the week after that, and so on. That’s a lot of work, all to establish a sense of trust based on a proven track record of picking winners:

The scammer begins with a large pool of marks, numbering ideally a power of two such as 1024 (210). The scammer divides the pool into two halves, and sends all the members of each half a prediction about the future outcome of an event with a binary outcome (such as a stock price rising or falling, or the win/loss outcome of a sporting event). One half receives a prediction that the stock price will rise (or a team will win, etc.), and the other half receives the opposite prediction. After the event occurs, the scammer repeats the process with the group that received a correct prediction, again dividing the group in half and sending each half new predictions. After several iterations, the “surviving” group of marks has received a remarkable sequence of correct predictions, whereupon the scammer then offers these marks another prediction, this time for a fee. The next prediction is, of course, no better than a random guess, but the previous record of success makes it seem to the mark to be a prediction worth great value.

It’s like an arithmetic magic trick. But the simplicity of the trick will be invisible to the marks themselves — all they’ve seen is an unbroken series of eerily perfect predictions. You’ll have their attention and their trust when you arrive at the big ask, whatever that turns out to be (an offer, perhaps, to buy a $2,000 stake in an exclusive, secretive hedge fund that uses your proven system to yield sensational returns).

All that work over all those weeks is based on the idea that people won’t trust you unless you give them some reason to do so — or, I suppose in this case, unless you give them the illusion of some reason to do so. But here again I think of the spectacular wealth of the “prosperity gospel” preachers and the huckster-“prophets” of Charisma-magazine Christianity. They’ve made all that money without ever being right about much of anything.

The self-proclaimed “prophets” of Charisma-world have established long track records of being wrong over and over again. But, like the unbroken string of failed “prophecies” from Q, none of that failure has seemed to erode the absolute confidence of their audience.

The hustlers hustling to pull off the “Baltimore stockbroker” are putting in all that work in the hopes of fooling “all of the people some of the time,” but is that really necessary when their Charisma counterparts have shown that you can just sit back, coast, and rake in the big bucks by fooling “some of the people all of the time”?

Why bother with all the effort of elaborate schemes designed to earn the trust of otherwise skeptical marks when you can make just as much money, or more, by fleecing the eagerly willing marks who are lining up to help buy Kenneth Copeland yet another private jet?

It turns out you don’t need the elegant illusions of something like the Baltimore stockbroker to establish trust. You can create that trust while being repeatedly, demonstrably wrong about everything. All you need to do is affirm and nurture a sense of free-floating grievance, then pass the offering plate. The only work you’ll need to worry about will be counting the money.

The most effective lie any con artist can tell is also the simplest: “Yes.” Encounter anyone in their “natural default setting” — what David Foster Wallace described as “the automatic way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life when I’m operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I am the center of the world, and that my immediate needs and feelings are what should determine the world’s priorities” — and then simply tell them “Yes, you’re right.” They’ll take it from there, and the only lies you’ll ever have to tell them are the lies they were already telling themselves.

• That Wikipedia list of confidence scams also includes this valiant attempt to describe “Change raising” or the “quick change”:

For example, a con artist targeting a cashier apologetically uses a ten-dollar bill to pay for an item costing less than a dollar, claiming not to have any smaller bills; the change of over nine dollars will include either nine singles or a five and four singles. The con artist then claims to have found that he had a dollar bill, after all, and offers to change it and the nine dollars for the original ten. If the con artist can manipulate the clerk into handing over the ten-dollar bill first, the con artist can then give it back to the clerk in place of one of the singles the con artist was expected to give the clerk. The con artist then pretends to notice he has “mistakenly” given the clerk nineteen dollars instead of ten; producing another single, the con artist suggests he add this to the nineteen and let the clerk give him back an even twenty. The scam relies on the cashier placing small bills in the register where they will be mixed with existing bills, and the cashier’s failure to notice that the nineteen dollars given by the con artist included ten dollars that belonged to the store in the first place (the money that should’ve been given back for the $10 that was handed over early). Thus the con artist has stolen ten dollars, minus the cost of the cheap item that was purchased (effectively stealing over nine dollars). The con artist starts with twelve dollars (the original ten-dollar bill and two singles), then leaves with a twenty and also keeps one of the singles (the one that was “mistakenly” switched with the $10). (The cashier should have noticed that the con artist overpaid by $9, not $19, and thus when the con artist produces the second $1 bill, the cashier should hand back $10, not $20.) To avoid this con, clerks should keep each transaction separate and never permit the customer to take change before handing over the original payment.

The reader may not understand exactly what happens to the cashier here, but after trying to read this, they’ll understand how that cashier feels. That’s not to fault the writer — the whole point of this scam is to bedazzle and befuddle with a cascade of confusing steps.

This would be a great assignment for anyone learning to write training manuals or how-to books. If you learn to write a clear, concise, step-by-step instruction guide to the quick change, you can probably write the same thing for any process.

• The following video (via Mark Evanier) isn’t about confidence scams. It’s about what happens when a group of merry pranksters finds the kind of loophole that grifters might exploit for personal gain and, instead, chooses to have fun with it.

Uncategorized

Charisma

Previous Post

November 3, 2021

Carlos, Starbuck, and the oldest con in the book

Next Post

November 10, 2021 All the hot new trends in biblical baby names

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who had a coat of many colors?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joseph Jacob Esau Benjamin