Skip to main content

The Confidence Game - Maria Konnikova ****

One of my favourite TV shows is Hustle, and in effect what Maria Konnikova gives us in this 2016 title is the science of Hustle - the psychology behind the way that confidence tricksters are able to manipulate their marks, whether it’s to sell something dodgy or to live a fictional life. 

Konnikova breaks down a con to its traditional stages, from the first contact (the put-up) to the final subtlety where the true con artist does not go for a single take, but rather makes it seem like things have gone a little wrong, so the mark needs to double down and come up with even more. At each stage we are presented with one or more stories from real life, some quite as remarkable as the fictional cons in the TV programme, others far simpler. From Nigerian princes to Ponzi schemes, all of fraudulent life is here.

The temptation would be to focus on the stories at the expense of science, but Konnikova gives us plenty of depth in psychological studies that help explain why some con artists are so successful - and also why some overreach themselves and fail. It seems odd to be saying this in a review of a popular science book, but if anything Konnikova focuses too much on the reporting of studies, which tends to be rather drily put across, and perhaps could have provided a couple more stories, which are the parts where the book comes alive.

The only real negative I’d say is that I don’t think it’s acceptable these days to write up studies from psychology, especially those dating back to the previous century as many of these do, without going into the replication crisis and the reality that many studies in the field - quite probably including some cited here - are problematic. This can be because the sample size was too small, the maths has been poorly handled or the studies have proved impossible to reproduce. Apart from the mention of what probably amounted to a self-con in a parapsychology study, you might think that all of the studies mentioned were absolutely solid with no basis for concern.

Despite this issue, it’s still an excellent book. It's an effective exploration of what amounts to field trials of human fallibility. While the grifters are hardly ever the loveable rogues portrayed in Hustle, we do even hear about one fraudster with a degree of conscience. And it’s hard not to sympathise with a forger of modern art whose paintings surely demonstrated that the value put on paintings by the likes of Rothko and Pollock is ridiculous. It’s not really about art at all, or the forgeries would be considered just as good as the originals: it’s simply about the fashion attached to the artist’s name. Arguably, it's the art world itself that is home to the con artists here. 

Konnikova does a great job of grounding the reality of the con, and the personalities behind it, in the best explanations that psychology can offer.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more