The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

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

Twenty five 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, letting literally thousands of contracts – both which I have bid and awarded, 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 – before he can effectively swindle his prey. In one of my businesses I owned, I have been hired internationally for decades – precisely because of my ability to spot a con, and protect a client. I eventually sold that business after decades of global, industry leading work.

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.

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

1.  Is always a billionaire or just about to be one, yet can never seem to pay for lunch.

2.  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.

3.  Seems to be a dunce/incapable on every subject with single exception of how the money flows and works.

4.  Money is always imminent from some black-box mechanism (private trade access, Euro bonds, insurance wrap, Saudi Prince, African diamonds, etc.) which is hidden from you or implied as above your paygrade level.

5.  Rides the roller coaster of bi-polar behavior – uses it as a passive-aggressive method of manipulation.

6.  Abuses substances, especially bipolar-enhancing-yet-sustainable ones like alcohol, and is easily addicted/chain smokes. Only ‘friends’ are drunks.

7.  Meticulously avoids providing any employable work or value other than his ‘Network’. You must match his ‘Network’ contribution with lots of cash as your contribution, usually. If not he gets angry or puts on a display of intimidation.

8.  Network of contacts never seems to include any acquaintances of duration longer than one or two years. Longest tenured ‘friends’ are actually a litany of people they have left injured in their wake of liability; promising to pay them back for their loss with the next ‘awesome opportunity!’

9.  Holds no references/friends/contacts from any of the businesses he mentions working with/for in the past.

10.  Shows sudden indignant flashes of anger when uncertainty arises concerning money. Money from you is always urgently needed within 24 or 48 hours because of some ‘limited opportunity’.

11.  Makes flamboyant display or often mention of her generosity or team-player nature.

12.  Exaggerates his contribution or investment into a project or effort. Equates two phone calls to 8 hours of work.

13.  Cannot seem to keep a spouse.

14.  Is generous with money when it is in theory – then suddenly greedy when it is on the table.

15.  Seems to constantly roll from one injury to the next – lots of down time from injury and illness.

16.  Takes ridiculous risks for no reason/no gain. Thinks gambling is an expertise.

17.  Is an easy sell himself. Gets furious or hangs up the phone if you don’t immediately accede to his latest scheme. Calls you ‘pig headed’ if you hold doubt about even 1 thing out of 100.

18.  Speaks often of the Bible or God. Habitually forces tactical discussions into tangential conjecture about how he always does the right thing.

19.  Promises the moon, delivers a rotten melon. Tells you how lucky you are, or that it is your fault.

20.  Belittles everyone they connect or work with as not matching up to his standard of motive, ability, outcomes or goals.

21.  Let’s you know at all times and repeatedly, what it is you do not personally do well – never evaluates herself. Never shows humility. Never forgives.

22.  Rehashes in rambling, the same issue over and over and forgets that she just recently ranted about it before. Stalks victims.

23.  Pattern of boasting that someone whom he just met, is his close friend or business partner.

24.  Doesn’t know anyone from his neighborhood, high school or college days – seldom speaks with family.

25.  Her kids are never around her, are out of control themselves, druggies and are crooks or con men (women) as well.

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 Comments »

  1. “‘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”

    Then how can it be tested?

    “but it holds the Null in certain circumstances”

    Like what?

    Comment by AnonDoc | January 6, 2018 | Reply

    • Then why do you use language like “proving nihilism as false.”, as if to misleadingly imply that you know for certain?

      I am ETHICALLY open to nihilism – which means that if it showed consilience over a long period of plenary challenge (not just time – and one cannot prove a negative) then I would be favored to accept it. But I have paid for, and run tests which have falsified it. This is my prerogative and mandate as a skeptic, to go look. To test what angry people tell me, in order to see if I can craft a reduction hierarchy and discern misinformation and agenda. So I did.

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | January 6, 2018 | Reply

      • “and one cannot prove a negative”

        That being what? Nihilism or it’s negation?

        “as if to misleadingly imply that you know for certain?”

        Do you claim to? Regardless my point is to be careful about using misleading language.

        “and run tests which have falsified it.”

        You said “one cannot prove a negative”. Explain.

        Comment by AnonDoc | January 6, 2018

      • One can falsify a claim, but cannot prove an absence or negative claim. You are conflating these two and interweaving them through an equivocation fallacy. Is this on purpose? The only reason my statements would seem misleading is if you cannot differentiate between these two basic philosophical concepts.

        Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | January 6, 2018

      • “One can falsify a claim, but cannot prove an absence or negative claim.”

        The difference being what? I don’t see how one can do one w/o the other.

        Comment by AnonDoc | January 6, 2018

      • The best example is the white crow example.

        Falsified Claim: All crows are black (null hypothesis). I need only produce one white crow to falsify this positive claim. All I have to do is provide one verified example that violates nihilism, and it is falsified – done.

        Attempting to Prove a Negative: There is no such thing as a white crow (pseudo-theory). I cannot prove this to be true. I cannot say that I hold proof that there is no such thing as another realm separate from our measurable one. So, the way rhetoric works is to game this discussion so that the proof of a negative is the only answer which is allowed to be discussed. This is fake skepticism. Most of our socially enforced science is enforced by means of this second principle. Social pressure and rhetoric, and not science.

        Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | January 6, 2018

    • “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?”

      Great question AD. It is not a ‘preponderance of evidence’ matter. The falsification of nihilism is a deductive issue, not inductive. Neither is Fundamentalism, Fundamentalism is abductive. So neither of these pseudo-theories has to hang around for ‘the preponderance of evidence’ – as this is a fiction we carry from our sophomoric understanding of science (I did for a long time as well). If the Fundamentalist god exists, and he is in a relationship with mankind and men, then that would be readily obvious – because that is the definition of relationship. He, she or it, is not. OR, the definition of god which the Fundamentalists use, is wrong. This is abductive. I have never seen the Fundamentalist’s definition of god, pass the sponsorship step of the Scientific Method. Therefore I see it as pseudo-theory, and lack an allowance for it. No matter how much ‘evidence’ we keep saying we bring to the argument, the idea never improves and just keep shrinking and being explained by other mechanisms.

      So because the concept of the Fundamentalists god fails Wittgenstein therefore, I lack an allowance for it.

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | January 6, 2018 | Reply

    • “What do you think the truth MAY be?”

      OK… now that is a skeptical question. We have cordoned off what is our basis of epistemology, observation, logical calculus and soundness – and we have eliminated arguments based upon Wittgenstein failure, psuedo-theory and plenitude. This removes from our table all the crap which the agenda people throw onto it. Net of this, there is a box inside which I leave all things OPEN for wonder/possibility. The box is drawn here… https://i1.wp.com/theethicalskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Ethical-Boundaries-of-Personal-Cosmology.jpg?ssl=1

      That box is actually not really a ‘box’ as that is simply handy to allow the mind to begin to grapple with boundaries of reason – and the first realms inside of which they are allowed to do what I call – a Metaphysical Selection.

      Inside this box I am free to assemble grander scales of stacked provisional, assumption and conjecture based ideas, provided that the participant understands that they are adopting risk in doing so. It is our ontological sand box if you will. But it is not without merit.

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | January 6, 2018 | Reply

    • “What do you think the truth MAY be?” 2/2

      But we do not enter that ‘box’ if you will, without tools or information sets.

      1. Nihilism is false. Something valid is there. I do not know what it is, but something is there which is not easily described in our frame of reference, nor our linear material monkey minds.

      2. (Using the ‘creator’ model as a scientific assumption) – the ‘creator’ of our DNA, is not the same entity nor skill level nor ability to solve, nor approach in solving – a problem. In surfing there is a paradigm, God creates the waves, I just ride em. The creator of our DNA, is 1. a rider of the wave, not a creator of it, and 2. are not that technologically far from us. and 3. Crafted its letters modes, means and codons as a means to solve a problem. A problem with the surfer faces, not the creator of the wave. So a ‘GOD’ did not create our DNA. But by the third letter of the DNA codon – neither did it spontaneously generate here on Earth. So something else exists, which is not god. The creator of the Universe is in no way shape or form, the same creator of our DNA. Now I dispense with the creator assumption, now that utility is complete.

      3. There are things which we observe, of which certain elements among mankind, are terrified. The fake skeptic movement is the lap dog of this powerful ruling group – and this is why you will find them opposing study of a specific set of what they call ‘pseudoscience’. To them, skepticism has become = close your eyes and regurgitate one-liners. The question is: Why are they terrified? I do not know exactly, but my best extrapolation is that it has something to do with control of this planet. A desperate control of such urgency – that complete annihilation is an option under consideration. These rulers are not here to make life better for mankind, in my years overseas, they could give a flying fuck about us – they only here to use mankind as a player in that desperate shield. We are human hostages. Who they are? I have no idea. I just see their dirty fingerprints all over us.

      4. Consciousness does not end. The proof of this arrives almost daily. Only the religiously dogmatic and angry nihilist carries the idea that life ends in blankness now. You have to literally ignore the subject or apply PhD levels of fake skepticism to deny this scientific fact. I personally cannot play that game.

      From there, I proceed onward with conjecture which helps explain these observational bases.

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | January 6, 2018 | Reply

  2. “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 form of rhetoric. Dealing inside ethics, renders morality almost moot.”

    “I am a consequentialist and a deontologist.”

    So you adhere to a mix of the two? I’m sure most do. I probably do.

    “On the question ‘Are there some ethics which are absolute?’ – Very possibly, but the universe has asked us to declare our ethics first, not adopt them. Not seek answers from outside – but stand and decide – in the Navy Seals, these are called ‘Big boy Rules’. If there are absolute ethics, then they are laid aside long enough to see how we will act – under stress – and without constraints.”

    So you are not certain and believe we will have to decide for ourselves?

    Comment by AnonDoc | November 14, 2017 | Reply

    • “So you are not certain and believe we will have to decide for ourselves?”

      Not in a vacuum of course. If there is a meaning to be ascribed to this realm – one which belies the insultingly delimited yet elegant simplicity of its physics – then that meaning has to do with love. Love defined as ‘a reasoned commitment to serve.’ In absence of this meaning, an ethic is simply a play act. The torment of this realm is extraordinarily capable of rendering asunder any such play act. And those who fail its bidding accrue bitterness and cynicism – seeking to deny the rights thereof to their fellow man. This is the genesis of much of the nihilist’s vengeance on the religious. The religious claim such hatred as the origin of the demonic; hence their disdain for the approach.

      So as for me – I hold to this ethic, but refuse the path of either religion. Nor do I claim my speculations to originate from science or divine revelation. Nor am I either man’s enemy. 🙂

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | November 15, 2017 | Reply

      • So you are saying that if there is a meaning in life, you believe it must have to do with love? Cool:)

        1. Since you said “If there is a meaning …”, does that mean that you are not absolutely certain and are open-minded? (I am o-m, BTW)

        2.”Nor do I claim my speculations to originate from science or divine revelation.” OK, so where do you get your ethics from? What you just described above?

        Comment by AnonDoc | November 15, 2017

      • 1. Since you said “If there is a meaning …”, does that mean that you are not absolutely certain and are open-minded? (I am o-m, BTW)

        I am open to all possibilities – ethically even nihilism, I keep as a model in my mind and watch for evidence which supports it. But unfortunately, I keep finding the opposite and have even encountered falsifying evidence against nihilism. It is simply not a successful scientific theory (actually it is a pseudo-theory – but it holds the Null in certain circumstances, so one must keep it in the mix).

        2.”Nor do I claim my speculations to originate from science or divine revelation.” OK, so where do you get your ethics from? What you just described above?

        Yes, consequentialist (falling short of science), science only in a few cases, and deontological processes. The resolution of ethics must come from disagreement – and contain some grey areas too. Just part of the Big Boy Rules we operate under. However I do regard men as having certain inalienable rights. Existential? I suppose. Still valid.

        🙂

        Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | November 20, 2017

  3. 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

    Comment by AnonDoc | November 13, 2017 | Reply

    • I am saying that:

      1) I know social skeptic minions WILL do harm, not like to do harm, but will actively seek to harm those who criticize them. Yes. I have direct experience with this. But the main reason is not this. Simply to keep the issue off me, and on the subject at hand. Read the About page. I expound on it there a bit.

      2) I did not say morals are irrelevant, I said that it was a fortiori to the study of ethics, and therefore almost moot. They are relevant, because ethics are relevant – but they are a subset of ethics and therefore moot rhetoric when used as an agenda whipping horse.

      Hope that helps clarify my stances a bit more.
      TES 🙂

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | November 13, 2017 | Reply

      • “2) I did not say morals are irrelevant, I said that it was a fortiori to the study of ethics, and therefore almost moot. They are relevant, because ethics are relevant – but they are a subset of ethics and therefore moot rhetoric when used as an agenda whipping horse.”
        I didn’t say you said that MORALS themselves were irrelevant.
        I was talking abt the origins & nature of them.
        “but they are a subset of ethics”
        Oh, so you distinguish between the two terms. I guess I’m not big on the difference. I should have said in my original question,
        “What are your views on morality?
        (E.g, objectivism or subjectivism, consequentialism or deontologicalism, etc.)”
        “What are your views on ethics?”

        Comment by AnonDoc | November 13, 2017

      • 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.

        I am a consequentialist and a deontologist. Both play into the decision on the greater part of us, to assume an ethical standard as authority. On the question ‘Are there some ethics which are absolute?’ – Very possibly, but the universe has asked us to declare our ethics first, not adopt them. Not seek answers from outside – but stand and decide – in the Navy Seals, these are called ‘Big boy Rules’. If there are absolute ethics, then they are laid aside long enough to see how we will act – under stress – and without constraints. Anyone can be a good person as a slave. It is what we do, when we have power and freedom and an antagonist – which is our measure.

        Ethics – an adherence to commonly agreed standards of practice or, those standards of practice themselves.

        TES

        Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | November 13, 2017

  4. 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?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 12, 2017 | Reply

    • Just a reminder to myself that you want anonymity but also to distinguish you from other anonymous commenters, yes – it is simply in the text of my post – there is no name for a commenter. Your name in the comments is ‘anonymous’.

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | November 12, 2017 | Reply

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

    Comment by Anonymous | November 5, 2017 | Reply

    • 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 views on morality?
      (E.g, objectivism or subjectivism, consequentialism or deontologicalism, etc.)
      4. How and why did you arrive at this list?

      Comment by Anonymous | November 6, 2017 | Reply

      • Hey AnonDoc,

        Great questions.

        1. This cabal which I critique, will seek to do harm to the families of my co-workers and friends. Neither am I looking to gain fame nor make income off of these thoughts. They are the property of mankind.

        2. Gosh, the official answer is ‘I do not know what the truth is.’ But, through some extraordinary events which have happened in my life, I have developed some hints. They are falsifying events – proving nihilism as false. They were white crow moments. But that does not mean that I jump right into a counter-religion as a result of these observations. I remain the friend of both the nihilist and the theist – understanding the mistakes that lure one into such fatalistic sets of conclusiveness. Choosing instead, a middle ground of recourse, ignostic atheism until I get better information.

        3. Morality – is a red herring argument. I have morals, but arguments attempting to ascribe discrete origins to them are a form of rhetoric. Dealing inside ethics, renders morality almost moot.

        4. 30 years of doing business – who has not run into these types? When my dad passed on, I had to meet with probably 5 or 6 of these con types. They all had sold him ghost product, inventions, fake property or money sourcing scams, and then tried to defraud his estate out of money – thinking that they could swift talk my Mom into coughing up some cash. Fortunately I was helping her – along with my law firm – and systematically took each of these religious and smooth talker’s out of play. It was the ugliest side of humanity I had ever seen – all wrapped up in grand talk about doing good and god….. and how much of a team player they were….. If there is a hell, these people are well on their way there.

        TES

        Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | November 12, 2017

    • No AnonDoc,

      It is OK to be anonymous here.

      TES

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | November 12, 2017 | Reply


Leave a Reply to The Ethical Skeptic Cancel reply

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: