I am not surprised. We allow politicians to lie all the time, never noticing the conflict with their voting history. The story we make up in our heads about them is primally important.

As for Jackson Pollock, it looks easy to forge what looks like a construction accident - and this opens another question as to why the origin of a piece of art makes so big a difference. Like diamonds, art doesn't get more useful because somebody paid more for it. Think, "Dutch tulips."

In my experience, people who are taken in by cons have a slight shade of the con-artist in themselves. Look at the lead in that NYT story--she wants to get money for nothing, so she is taken in by the 3card monte guy. Same with the art dealer--she wants something no one else has, and to get it without struggle. Voila--mysterious treasure trove appears.
If it seems too good to be true--it's not true.

Two words: Climate change.

KateC, you hit on something in the neighborhood of what evolutionary psychologist Robert Trivers writes about in his work on deception -- that an ability for self-deception is needed to help us deceive others.

Okay...

"Two words: Climate change."

I've always enjoyed stories by and about con men. I used to work in the financial industry and "the long con is always on."
Some of them are pathological. Some have learned the ropes through dedication. Some could have been Fundamentalist preachers. It's good entertainment.

That's the beauty of the Nigerian prince scheme. The victim has to be willing to do immoral acts to get taken.

people who are taken in by cons have a slight shade of the con-artist in themselves."

And . . .

"an ability for self-deception is needed to help us deceive others."

Yep, but, I think that article seems to dismiss the "greed" aspect. Those who foolishly put money down on three-card Monte are, in fact, greedy because they are trying to make a quick buck for doing no work.

The same is true with all the Madoff madness; how many of his victims didn't think they were making a quick buck? My guess would be a small percentage. Most thought that they were better than the average person and that they deserved to be making more and quicker money than others who just weren't as smart as they were.

I understand that many participants in the Madoff con were drawn to it from a sense of a religious connection with Madoff.

This plays into something I learned a long time ago in a discussion with Frank Abagnale, the check-fraud artist portrayed in the movie 'Catch Me If You Can' - every con depends on the formation of some personal connection between the con artist and the mark. He said that the technical quality of his forged checks and documents was a lot less important to the success of his con than the quality of the personal connections he had to make to get them to 'pass'. While his docs only had to be somewhat-believable, he had to be totally-believable in the role he was playing to pass them. He said that even mediocre-quality counterfeits would be accepted without question if he could get his role-playing right, and that what kept questions unasked and suspicions unformed was his acting ability, not his forging ability. And the key to that was the personal connection - the formation, however indistinct, of some tribal or grouping identity with the mark(s) that made him a member with them. That's why his preferred roles were groups which already have a relatively-strong tribal identity, such as doctors, lawyers and airline pilots.

We are a lot quicker to find explanations for apparent discrepancies in the physical evidence before us, than we are to question the validity of a personal connection that we, after all, contributed to the creation of. Account numbers may be wrong, the bank computer can make mistakes, things are mistyped or misplaced, Pollock's hand wobbled when he signed the picture - but we connected with this person ourselves, and it may be a lot harder to have to consider that our personal, social judgements may be misled or tricked.

llater,

llamas

"Yep, but, I think that article seems to dismiss the 'greed' aspect. "

I don't know if "greed" is always the right word. Consider: I have a hobby, which I won't mention here but it involves a lot of electronics. About seven years ago, there was a person, an engineer well known and respected in this particular field, who decided to start his own business making electronic products in this field. The designs he showed around were highly innovative, and customers started queing up. He rolled his first products out the door and they got rave reviews.

For the first year or so, things went swimmingly. Customers were willing to plunk down money and wait months and months for delivery (which is actually not unusual in this particular field; boutique manufacturing costs money and takes time). But then some quirks started showing up. There were quality control issues. A lot of customers started getting devices with flaws, including some that were DOA. Some people got products different from what they ordered. Some people who sent in products for warranty repair either got them back still not fixed, or in a few cases didn't get them back at all. Still, the business was very popular.

Things got worse. Delivery times stretched out. People put down deposits on new models that were never delivered, and they didn't get their money back. Rumors started circulating about what the owner was doing with some of his money. But people were willing to make excuses for him. Now, most of these people either had no financial interest, or the business actually owed them money or products. But the guy's reputation and back story was so good that nobody could believe he was a grafter. He made some apologies which involved stories about family members.

But eventually, it all collapsed. Deliveries stopped, and customers who pre-paid got stiffed. Suppliers and employees who hadn't been paid took him to court. And there were personal breakdowns: someone did some checking and found out that a "female relative" that the owner said he had been supporting was actually a prostitute. The business dissolved leaving a lot of people holding various bags, and the guy's rep was trashed.

What happened? The guy was not an evil person. But as great an engineer as he was, he sucked as a businessman. He didn't know what he should be paying for things, and as a result he overpaid for some things and under-paid (getting poor quality) for others. Some products were overpriced and others were priced too low. He didn't know how to keep records or do books, and as a result, he didn't know where he was making or losing money. He didn't know where to turn to for advice or help, because he didn't know any business people. He was over his head and he knew it, but he didn't know how to get out of the trap of his own making. He resorted to self-medicating and some other things to try to sleep at night.

A lot of people were willing to make excuses for him, up to nearly the very end. Some of these were would-be customers who were probably experiencing sunk-cost fallacy. But there were lots of others who had no financial involvement at all. They just liked the guy, thought he had a good reputation, and couldn't believe that something he did would go to hell like that.

(The guy has, over the past several years, worked hard to try to rebuild his reputation. He more or less gave away what was left of his business, and then did some work gratis for the new owners to get some paid-for products delivered. He's been very active at education in the field, which he is good at. And he's promised never to start a business again.)

There are a lot of very smart people who find out being smart isn't enough when they try to start a business. It is amazing how skilled people can be at one thing and completely clueless at something else.