Jeannika,

These con men such as JAR and Genpo are extremely plausible..they have invested years and much effort into the plausible facade that they present to us, the marks.
Genpo is particularly plausible as he rides on the assumption of good feelings that we hold for those coming from a spiritual tradition where the monks or priests take vows to work for the good of their flocks, so I don't think you should give yourself too much grief over taking such a plausible con man at face value.

Its an unfortunate reality that we have to get up close and personal to a con to understand how they manipulate us emotionally, its a hard learning process that no amount of book learning can prepare us for.
I think that part of the learning process involves being taken in a few times before we can start to discriminate. Had I not been taken in so often by the clever wordplay of various conmen, I would never have begun to look more closely at their actions and, most importantly, started to rely on my own senses and critical thinking when presented with a plausible con.

I don't consider myself particularly gullible but I am still vulnerable at times of low mood----I don't think that there is a human being on the planet who is not at times vulnerable. Learning about how the cons work on us is the best preventative education.

@Jeannika (or anyone who might know)

All of those achievements on Genpo Roshi's web page-- do any external sources verify them? Anyone can claim anything about his/her past -- my favorite so far is Keith Raniere's claim that he was the record holder for male high-school age New Yorkers in the 100 yard dash. AFAIK, no one's ever found records to back up that claim.

But it must be true, because he says so.

A point that I think is critical is that it is perfectly possible for someone such as Genpo, JAR or Raniere to be a legitimate high achiever in a particular sphere and to also be a conman. Just as it is possible for a Genpo to be a sincere spiritual seeker for many years and then to use his accumulated learning to bilk his followers.

Nobody is a static personality in the sense that they are always honest and incorruptible and as they say in financial product warnings: past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

We use a lot of short cuts in thinking in order to cut down on the investigative thought that we need to properly evaluate any situation or person. In non-important situations this pays off as (conditional) trust can be given on the basis of social acceptance, prior knowledge, willingness to risk making a mistake etc, etc.
In situations where these people are looking for access and influence into peoples minds, however, a continuous process of evaluation needs to be in place, in the same way that it is said of democracy--it requires eternal vigilence in order to remain democratic.

None of us is wholly good or wholly evil (although I can cheerfully label some as completely evil---that is my way of reminding myself to avoid such types) and we all make choices. When those choices are solely driven by self-interest, eg JAR's and Genpo's overriding desires for money and power then the fallout to victims becomes an issue of rigid denial. To be successful, the conman first has to con himself that he is superior and righteous in his use and abuse of others.

@ Jeannika We must never feel bad for overlooking something that triggers red warning flags. Don't be so hard on yourself! You're still an excellent researcher. As stoic says, it takes practice. I was swindled in romance by a serious drug addict with a lot of money.Just when I believed I could read people very well, I met him and believed what he told me, although I didn't really fall for him at first, I fell into his trap. One thing I will admit is the lure of the music industry (he held an important position for a famous artist and I traveled with them) allowed me to overlook the warning signs. But once we were at my house and the glitz and glitter of the concerts wasn't present I saw the pure horrible darkness of his addictions. Evil incarnate with extensive mental and emotional abuse,not physical. The evil was attached to him, it was not even a conscious effort on his part. Although this wasn't a large group experience, the same elements are applicable just as they are to any situation in which someone wants to control and exploit others.

@stoic I just want to thank you for your knowledge and ability to help us understand these complex situations.

Ray looks completely coked out in that video. How can that influence anyone to think he's a do-gooder? Only the residents of the nearest halfway house or some desperate women who can't get a date. He looks awful and pink is not a good color choice for him.

Quote
Stoic
SNIP
None of us is wholly good or wholly evil (although I can cheerfully label some as completely evil---that is my way of reminding myself to avoid such types) and we all make choices. When those choices are solely driven by self-interest, eg JAR's and Genpo's overriding desires for money and power then the fallout to victims becomes an issue of rigid denial. To be successful, the conman first has to con himself that he is superior and righteous in his use and abuse of others.

I disagree, Stoic. Bernard Madoff, the patron saint of all con men, knew he was a thoroughly mediocre stock-picker. He also knew he was conning people, and appears to have enjoyed knowing he was going to wreck people's lives. That might even have been part of his motivation. (Madoff actually wasn't such a great con man, and he might have known that, too. The SEC extended his run by several years because they ignored credible reports about him. There's a lesson in that, I think.)

Top Enron execs flooded the market with Enron stock at the same time as they urged employees, alarmed by its plunging price, to buy it; I personally think they did this in order to ensure buyers for the stock they were dumping. The video of the company meeting where execs tell employees to fill their 401ks exclusively with Enron stock even as the price sank is quite chilling, and those ill-advised purchases were one of the reasons the Enron collapse wiped out so many people. (Always diversify your 401k, kids, and if your bosses are telling you to buy only company stock, it's time for an anonymous call to the SEC. And then a non-anonymous call to an employment agency.)

So you don't need to con yourself to con everyone else. If you enjoy hurting people while appearing to help them, conning is the job for you.

I do agree it's possible to be a high achiever at some things and still be a con man -- Eckhart Tolle appears to have been a genuinely gifted student, for example-- but that seems rather rare now that I'm thinking about it.

Although, if you take off the moral lenses for a moment, the ability to con is a gift. It's a gift from the devil, but it's a gift all the same.

@Christa,
I am happy for you to disagree, however, my point was that the conman(or woman) first has to con himself that he is superior and righteous towards his marks, not that he believes that the junk he is selling is good stuff and worth its inflated price.

Cons work on an emotional level, once the conman has the confidence of the mark (trust, which is a form of personal commitment to accept the conman as authentic) he can try to sell almost any outlandish scheme. The content of the con is immaterial once he has the trust of the mark.

The con begins when the conman starts to manipulate the emotional response of the mark, long before he presents the scheme. For him to consciously manipulate that emotional response he needs to believe himself entitled and that is why all successful conmen first have to engender beliefs of superiority and righteousness in themselves before selecting a mark.

All conmen retain a deep contempt towards their marks, they despise them for being so easily fooled, and con themselves that a lack of experience and knowledge on the part of the mark makes it OK for them to be exploited to the extreme. It is never a relationship of parity and there is no human allowance for a simple lack of knowledge and experience on the part of the mark.

All moral considerations aside, I agree with you that the art of conning can be considered a gift. We all manipulate to an extent to get what we want. For successful conmen though this gift becomes a game, a form of one-upmanship and validation as a person---and eventually the only game they know how to play.
The presence of others who may be badly impacted by their self-aggrandising machinations does not even register on the scale of consideration. Moral considerations cannot be cast aside if one's impact on others is recognised.

One thing I would ask you: Bernie Madoff admitted to being a mediocre stock-picker once he had been caught red-handed, (his con relied on him selling himself as a super stock-picker)--was this an attempt to mitigate the public perception of his behaviour after the fact or a true expression of his all too human limitations?
Given his documented history of lying and conning, why would you put any value on any public statement that he makes?
The most devastating result of tangling with a conman is the destruction of trust in the mark, but that can also be a gift if it allows us to see that we can never really know what is going on inside someone else's head and that what comes out of their mouths is little indication of true motives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2010 02:56PM by Stoic.

I'm not relying on anything Madoff said after his arrest, or for that matter, very much of what he said before it. I'm looking at the actions he took after he realized, back in the 1960s, that he wasn't a great stock picker. That realization seems to have led him down the road he took. If he'd been content to make money in the low-profile but lucrative areas in which he is talented, he'd still have been rich-- the work Madoff's firm did in the early 60s is the basis of the NASDAQ, after all. For most people, that would be achievement enough. And money enough. Even power enough-- Madoff served for years as non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ. It just wasn't, for Madoff, prestige enough.

I agree with you, Stoic, that conmen's own self-interest drives them. I disagree that the "con begins when the conman starts to manipulate the emotional response of the mark." Madoff's con began when he decided he wouldn't let his lack of skills interfere with acquiring the power, prestige, and glitzy high profile that wealth managers to the wealthiest enjoy.

He created and inhabited the glittering image of a Master of the Universe money man, even though doing so required him to cheat people out of incalculable billions of dollars (estimates range from 12 to 20 billion upward, with growing sentiment that the true amount can and will never be known.) Most people would balk at that; Madoff didn't, because conmen feel entitled to satisfy their own needs regardless of -- well, anything, including who they hurt.

Madoff's victims were the collateral damage, not the point, of the con. The point was the image of world-beating Wall Street Ubermensch, and the power Madoff was able to exercise because everyone thought he was one. While he certainly enjoyed the feelings he got from smiling in people's faces and picking their pockets, I believe he would have done what he did whatever feelings his actions evoked in others.

There's a difference between doing something because you enjoy deceiving and hurting people and doing something and not caring whether you hurt them. I think all I'm getting at is there's more than one kind of conman, more than one basis for a con, and the differences might be important.

As for what Madoff said after his arrest? According to CNBC, he said "Fuck my victims." I believe him, actually. I believe that's what he felt.

Quote
Christa
@Jeannika (or anyone who might know)

All of those achievements on Genpo Roshi's web page-- do any external sources verify them? Anyone can claim anything about his/her past -- my favorite so far is Keith Raniere's claim that he was the record holder for male high-school age New Yorkers in the 100 yard dash. AFAIK, no one's ever found records to back up that claim.

But it must be true, because he says so.

---

Christa,
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, after three recent out-patient operations ... my husband was diagnosed with Melanoma. We're told he needs to go in for general surgery to remove all the cancer. We've been hiding out for a couple of days ... just trying to take it all in.

As to Genpo Roshi external sources. Last year I went online and checked him out, and there seemed to be a number of credible sites who verified his achievements. That said, most of the stuff posted was about his athletic acheivements and his college degree. While I didn't check this week, I'm assuming that information is still out there.

---

JeanD,
Interesting what you said about Genpo's face. When we got the email invitation from JAR last year inviting us to study with Genpo, the first thing my husband said was "this guy looks like an ex-con." LOL

---

Stoic,
I agree with your perceptions of Bernie Madoff. As far as I can see ... the guy's entire life, EVERYTHING he's said or done was part of a con. I don't believe the man's able to tell the truth, and I don't believe he felt/feels any remorse for his actions. As such any "after the fact" statements or confessions are suspect. (At least in my eyes)

All so very sad.

---

Happy Friday to everyone ... I hope this find you and your loved ones in good health and good spirits.

Love and Care ...

Jeannika

'There's a difference between doing something because you enjoy deceiving and hurting people and doing something and not caring whether you hurt them.'

From the point of view of the conman perhaps the above is true or useful.

From the point of view of those that his behaviour impacts, the 'collateral damage' as you put it, knowing that the conman is actively enjoying inflicting the damage or simply doesn't care is immaterial--the damage is inflicted on real feeling persons regardless. Employing a euphemism such as 'collateral damage' is minimising and an attempt at denial.
James Ray's victims aren't any less dead because we can possibly?? differentiate between whether he enjoys the con or just doesn't care.
Bernie Madoff's results aren't any less damaging because he simply doesn't care rather than gets some devilish thrill from rooking his customers.

I have to admit to zero interest in the nuances of any particular conmans psyche. I spent too many years trying to figure out the reasons that such people behave as they do, and that involved coming up with every possible excuse for the behaviour.
The problem with such an approach is that the focus is still fully on the perpetrator and not on my part in the relationship. Since I finally had to recognise that I could never know for sure what motivates such behaviour or what the perpetrator gets out of it beyond the obvious-----essentially that I had no influence or control whatever over such a person, it becomes sufficient to recognise the con and to take evasive action.

In order to recognise the con it is important to understand how and why the con works on me, not to understand the psyche of the conman.
Redeeming or excusing such behaviour is well beyond my capabilities, it is enough to recognise it and to prevent myself becoming further involved.

@Jeand,
Thanks for your kind words but I don't have any special knowledge or experience. I read these boards because reading of other peoples experience with these issues helps me to put my own history into perspective and it encourages me to feel less isolated to know that other people struggle with much the same conundrums. I write about what I have found to be true for myself. I don't expect what I have found to be true to have universal application, I have no answers.