The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Agency of Pseudo-Skepticism & Cultivated Ignorance

Key Warning Signs You are Dealing with a Flim-Flam Artist

Thirty three indicators that you are dealing with that base level of sociopath con man who frequents the periphery of legitimate international business. More obvious? Yes. Common traits with social skeptics? Absolutely.

For now, let’s take a break from my usual commentary regarding fake skeptics. Or perhaps not so much as a break in actuality, as fake skeptics notably constitute a very specialized form of sophisticated con – one perhaps not picked up upon by the general population as easily. So let me reword my introduction here. Why don’t we notch down our target of focus here to a less sophisticated, more readily obvious form of flim-flam artist, one known as the sales job con man. The con man does not bill himself as representing science. Heck he doesn’t even understand science – yet he is every bit the faker which is the social skeptic.

As a businessman, I have run into my share of con men. When I closed out my father’s estate after his passing, bless his heart, it turns out that he was a sucker for a con man with a half baked story. I spent years extracting his estate from the clutches of several greedy and dishonest players who stole from him or tried to swindle his estate out of money/property – one was even his trusted bank. The crooks at his major bank stole on the order of $2 million from him themselves – through an irrevocable trust scam that they ran on elderly clients in the 1980’s. Such cases are in the public domain, so go look them up, along with the banks which ran them. I was able to rescue my mother from destitution as a widow, through perseverance and aggressive prosecution of these fakers. Even at that young age, I learned the nature of, and how to spot the cheat, the swindle and the crooked sell. It played well into my ability to spot even more sophisticated fakers and cheats later on.

As a person who has executed budgets for nations, programs and clients, I have run into my share of swindlers, cheats, boasters, con-men, rip-off artists – and those who delude themselves along the pathway of attempting to delude others.

Just as in the case of the social skeptic, the con artist must first convince himself of the superior nature of his motives, abilities, wares and goals – he or she must con them self before they can effectively swindle their prey.

So without further ado, let’s take a quick look at that base level of sociopath con man who frequents the periphery of legitimate international business. More obvious, yes. Common traits with social skeptics? Absolutely.

Manifold signs that the person you are dealing with is a con man

  • Is always a billionaire or just about to be one, yet can never seem to pay for lunch.
  • Habitually values newer opportunities/contacts over older ones – the most recent deal coming in the door is always the most lucrative one on the docket.
  • Seems to be a dunce/incapable in every function with the single exception of who gets the money.
  • Has associates do all the detailed work so that any blame bypasses them and falls upon that associate instead.
  • Money is always imminent from some black-box mechanism (privileged ‘bullet trade’ access, Euro-bond listing, ‘insurance wrap’ scam, empty ‘bank guarantee’ rental, random Arab Prince, Blood Diamonds, etc.) which is hidden from you or implied as above your paygrade.
  • Rides the roller coaster of bi-polar behavior – uses it as a passive-aggressive method of manipulation.
  • Abuses substances, especially bipolar-enhancing-yet-sustainable ones like alcohol, and is easily addicted/chain smokes. Only ‘friends’ are drunks.
  • Is always able to top whatever you were about to do with an even better ‘magic beans’ opportunity, which is more important.
  • Claims to have perfect and total recall, but cannot seem to remember at all the last three times they borrowed money from you.
  • Meticulously avoids providing any employable work or value other than their ‘Network’.
  • You must match their ‘Network’ contribution with lots of cash as your contribution. If not they get angry or put on a display of intimidation.
  • Network of contacts never seems to include any acquaintances of duration longer than one or two years.
  • Habitually gravitates alongside innocent people with either talent or money. Puts on their finest display during this approach phase.
  • Longest tenured ‘friends’ are actually a litany of people they have left injured in their wake and to whom they secretly owe substantial funds.
  • Will demand that persons he owes, are valuable and mandatory ‘contributors’ (owners) of next project.
  • Seemingly random useless people show up in the calls as ‘members’. Can’t ever define their actual value – gets angry if anyone asks.
  • Other than those he owes money, holds no references/friends/contacts from anything they mention doing in the past.
  • They praise you for a smart long-term project you’ve been developing, and a month later will show up claiming to be leading that same effort.
  • They introduce expert idea-holder A to investor C, neither of which they had anything to do with, and demand that both recognize them as majority owner.
  • There is not one thing you have done in your career/life, which they are not better at, or have not topped in their career/life.
  • Repeatedly and publicly refers to your project regarding cognitively injured or impaired children, as ‘that thing helping the retards’.
  • Shows sudden indignant flashes of anger when uncertainty arises concerning money.
  • Hangs out around money, not to do any real work, but only long enough to figure out what he can eventually sue it for.
  • Money from you is always urgently needed within 24 or 48 hours because of some ‘limited opportunity’.
  • Makes flamboyant display or often mention of their generosity or team-player nature and how honest they are.
  • Exaggerates their contribution or investment into a project or effort. Equates two phone calls to 16 hours of work.
  • Of course they are already doing it and know it better than you, but just heard about it for the first time last week.
  • Habitually shifts facts about you in their mind. Can never get them to understand that you went to Stanford, not Harvard. Has no idea what Stanford even is.
  • Cannot seem to keep a spouse. Spouse is perpetually angry at them. Puts girlfriends on display during business activity.
  • Is generous with money when it is in theory – then suddenly greedy when it is on the table.
  • Calls drunk at 8:00pm and says ‘I just left a three hour ‘meeting’ (*burrrphh) with a guy who knows everything we need to do.’
  • Is an expert on a subject after briefly meeting a person who actually is an expert on that subject.
  • Claims to have deep access to higher-ups at MI5, CIA, NSA which allow him to forgo background checks on new partners or have green-lighted his scam-risk project as ‘the real thing’.
  • Describes an organization of more than three people or a process involving more than a couple phone calls and a commission check, as ‘this thing has a lot of moving parts’.
  • Makes flamboyantly display of how superior his expertise is as compared to yours, yet can’t even correctly pronounce the name of the expertise claimed subject.
  • Seems to constantly roll from one injury to the next – lots of down time from injury and illness.
  • Constantly hung up on some minor aspect of their appearance/class which limits them and makes them have to work harder than everyone else in the world.
  • Takes ridiculous risks for no reason/no gain. Thinks gambling is an expertise.
  • Is an easy sell them self. Gets furious or hangs up the phone if you don’t immediately accede to their latest expert scheme.
  • Calls you ‘pig headed’ if you hold doubt about even 1 scam out of 100.
  • Speaks often of the Bible or God. Habitually forces tactical discussions into tangential conjecture about how they always do the right thing.
  • Promises the moon, delivers a rotten melon. Tells you how lucky you are, or that it is your fault.
  • Belittles everyone they connect or work with as not matching up to their standard of motive, ability, outcomes or goals.
  • Let’s you know at all times and repeatedly, what it is you do not personally do well – never examines them self.
  • Never shows genuine humility – rather some canned act they have tucked away to whip out at the right time and place.
  • Exaggerates or manufactures fictitious wrongs they’ve suffered.
  • Never in reality forgives (saying ‘I forgive but I don’t forget’).
  • Everyone they have ever met, has wronged them – but can never seem to fully articulate just how.
  • Rehashes in rambling, the same issue over and over and forgets that they just recently ranted about it within the last 36 hours. Stalks victims.
  • Pattern of boasting that someone whom they just met, is a close friend or business partner.
  • Long list of those to whom you casually mention their name, who say they will never engage or speak with them again.
  • Doesn’t know anyone from their neighborhood, high school or college days – seldom speaks with family.
  • Their kids are never around them, are out of control themselves, druggies and are crooks or con men (women) as well.
  • Thinks everyone owes them money. Acts like they are doing you a favor by you loaning them money, due to how wonderful they are.
  • Knows everything, is better than you at anything, knows everyone, remembers everything, oft relates how people are so amazed at their skills.
  • Your monetary input to their company success was ‘a loan’, in its failure was ‘an investment’- either way it never comes due and they will never pay it back.
  • Never acknowledges those who helped along the way, even and especially under the extremely rare event of a success.
  • There is always a technicality, or some minor thing another party did along the way, which was a permissive excusing the theft of the loan/investment.
  • Meticulously avoids making any mention of, component of, or deal or agreement itself in writing or in an email.
  • Is personal friends with some ‘Prince’ or ‘King’ or ‘Banker’ in London, Switzerland or Germany who is allowing them privileged access to a ‘trade’.
  • Wants to appoint you as ‘CEO’ next year, then in a later meeting asks for you to invest in the company as part of that plan.
  • Irrational or intense flashes of anger or disdain towards minor, non-business related circumstances involving strangers.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 1
  1. The Ethical Skeptic, “Key Warning Signs You are Dealing with a Flim-Flam Artist” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 31 Oct 2017, Web; https://wp.me/p17q0e-6Oq

October 31, 2017 - Posted by | Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , ,

23
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
18 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
The Ethical SkepticAnonDocAnonymous Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AnonDoc
Guest
AnonDoc

“‘I do not know what the truth is.’” I know. That’s why I said, “What do you think the truth MAY be?” “liberal religions or spirituality” (E.g Ail Sina’s “Rational Spirituality” or the beliefs of Neale Donald Walch (sp?)) “I am open to all possibilities – ethically even nihilism,” Then why do you use language like “proving nihilism as false.”, as if to misleadingly imply that you know for certain? Would you say that you are in principle open-minded but in practice most of the evidence points the other way? What about fundamentalism? Same thing? “actually it is a pseudo-theory”… Read more »

AnonDoc
Guest
AnonDoc

“One cannot logically assemble a modus ponens regarding a moral, without addressing its origin. The origin may be implied as an external standard, or may simply be a common or personal standard, but the sentence always begins with a silent-but-implied [because ______________ has decreed this to be so,] therefore (statement of value)… So morals and their origins are a discussion distinction without a difference.” Sounds like the point I was thinking of making. I might have misunderstood your comment, “Morality – is a red herring argument. I have morals, but arguments attempting to ascribe discrete origins to them are a… Read more »

AnonDoc
Guest
AnonDoc

So are you saying that:
1: You are being anonymous b/c you fear the Social skeptics would like to do harm to
your co-workers and friend’s families and you don’t think it’s important to know anyway?
2: You find the question of the origin of morals to be irrelevant?(why?)

Thanks,
AnonDoc

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

1. Why do your comments say “DocD” on my tablet and “AonDoc(sp?)” elsewhere?
(I don’t blame you if you don’t know. And I wouldn’t use someone’s initials. I think that is from my email and I know you didn’t put my address up (not that you would do that, of course) and I’m not mad or anything, (I don’t really care) just letting you know.)
Are you trying to be able to tell me apart from anyone else who is anonymous?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

“Test”
To see if I need to use my real name.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Well I guess not :). However i have some questions (I know some are unrelated): 1. Why don’t you use your real name? Is it for privacy or safety reasons? (BTW, I think you quoted someone calling you “Mr.A”) 2. You, as an ignostic say you are tired of nihilists and fundamentalists commuting a bifurcation fallacy and you believe they are both wrong. Which begs the question: What do you think the truth may be? (What do you think of liberal religions or spirituality or real bona fide humanism?) (By the way, I am a nihilist.) 3. What are your… Read more »

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: