When the information first broke that George Santos, the freshman Republican consultant from Lengthy Island, had lied on his résumé, my first thought was, Effectively, in fact—he’s a politician. Because the scope of the lies grew, nevertheless, my analysis modified: not a politician, however a con artist.
It’s a distinction that I’ve burdened repeatedly within the years since I printed a e-book about con artists. Branding anybody who misrepresents one thing or lies a bit as a con artist could be handy, but when we accomplish that, the time period loses all which means. For con artists, mendacity is a means of being. It reaches previous exaggeration or misrepresentation right into a prevailing disconnect from actuality.
Santos’s lengthy listing of fabrications brings to thoughts among the most prolific con artists of the previous century. His instructional historical past is made up: no attendance at Horace Mann, so far as anybody can inform. No Baruch, no NYU. In reality, no school diploma in any respect. Although you need to admire his penchant for specifics—high 1 % of his (nonexistent) Baruch class! (For considered one of many historic analogues, see Ferdinand Waldo Demara, a.okay.a. the Nice Impostor. Demara, a high-school dropout, made a behavior of claiming others’ credentials as his personal, together with Ph.D.s, M.D.s, and some other diploma he may come up with.) Nor do Goldman Sachs or Citigroup have data of Santos working there. (For a historic tour de pressure of faux employment histories, see Clark Rockefeller—actual title, Christian Gerhartsreiter—who was not solely a faux Rockefeller but additionally a claimant to fairly the nonexistent enterprise pedigree.) And that’s merely a sampling of Santos’s lies.
How does somebody within the public eye ever hope that deceptions of this magnitude will go undetected? What explains con artists’ impulse to deceive, repeatedly, even because the fictions they inform grow to be more durable to take care of? These questions have fascinated psychologists for years—and we’re starting to seek out solutions.
In three years of analysis on con artists—interviewing them, spending time with them, submitting them to psychological questionnaires, and studying any obtainable psychological literature on them—I discovered that con artists are inclined to exhibit some mixture of the so-called darkish triad of character traits, which have been studied in misleading conduct extra broadly: psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Though psychopathy tends to get a variety of consideration—few issues are as eye-catching because the phrase psychopath—the trait that, to me, exemplifies the psychology of the con, and explains the hubris behind a pyramid of lies as excessive as Santos’s, is narcissism.
Narcissism within the case of the arrogance artist shouldn’t be narcissism within the sense that you just and I would use when speaking about somebody who feels that the world revolves round them. It’s an nearly pathological hubris; the thought that you just haven’t gotten caught but, so that you by no means will get caught. The sense that, out of everybody, you deserve it probably the most, no matter it could be. True narcissism permits you to rationalize all method of sin; it’s self-delusion taken to an excessive.
Narcissism breeds, as nicely, a self-reinforcing cycle: The extra you lie, the extra entitled you are feeling—and the extra certified. In 2019, a world group of psychologists—Francesca Gino of Harvard, Wiley Wakeman of the Stockholm Faculty of Economics, and Celia Moore of Bocconi College, in Italy—ran a collection of research that checked out dishonest’s results on self-image. Would individuals who minimize corners on a process really feel roughly assured of their expertise afterward? The outcomes have been considerably counterintuitive: Topics who lied about their efficiency on a collection of matrix issues really felt extra competent afterward. I should be good at this! Have a look at how nicely I did! (Ignore, for a second, that I inflated my outcomes.)
The psychologists additionally went a step past the standard laboratory video games to a pursuit extra immediately related to Santos: mendacity on a résumé. Members got a process—apply for a job utilizing equipped credentials—and would obtain a bonus if their utility was deemed to be within the high 25 % of all candidates. The trick was that every of the equipped credentials could possibly be twisted or misrepresented, if the applicant so desired. Oxford Brookes College may grow to be the College of Oxford. A two-week executive-education program at Harvard may grow to be an precise diploma from Harvard. And second-class honors could possibly be inflated to first-class honors. A full 35 % of individuals selected to misrepresent themselves on at the very least considered one of their credentials—and those who did reported feeling considerably extra competent on the finish than those that had precisely conveyed their {qualifications}. It’s the acute of dressing for the job you need—to the purpose the place you start to imagine you’re extra certified for that job than those that labored for it.
The result’s a perverse dynamic. The extra an individual like George Santos misrepresents himself and cons others for his personal achieve, the extra entitled he feels to maintain going. Why ought to I resign once I’m probably the most certified for the job? The con artist, at the very least to some extent, involves imagine his personal lies. One current collection of research discovered that individuals who have been confronted with proof of self-deception—believing themselves to have carried out higher than they really did, and higher than the typical particular person, on a collection of trivia questions—not solely did not acknowledge their self-delusion however started to see others as those susceptible to it. (Cue Santos’s current interview with Piers Morgan, during which the consultant largely deflected accountability for his lies.)
In fact, it’s not sufficient to lie and justify your conning to your self. It’s a must to persuade others to imagine in you. I’ve argued that there’s a con for everybody: Not everybody will fall for each con, however anybody can fall for a con that’s nicely suited to them. The grasp con artist is aware of decide the precise victims and the precise venue—after which promote his story most successfully.
Right here, Santos selected nicely. Politics is an space the place shades of grey aren’t simply tolerated; they’re the norm. So if anybody ever catches you in a lie, it’s simple sufficient to clarify it away. Add to that Santos’s selection of district—on Lengthy Island, the place there was little competitors (he ran uncontested for the Republican nomination) and a component of time strain (last-minute modifications within the district-map traces thwarted would-be challengers)—and you’ve got an ideal stage for even the most important lies to go largely ignored.
Even within the best enviornment, how do you get others to place their belief in you? Con artists appear to intuitively grasp what psychology researchers know: We are inclined to belief individuals who seem and act equally to us. (Some research have grouped folks collectively in comparatively arbitrary methods, like whether or not they over- or underestimated the variety of dots in an image or whether or not they most popular artwork by Kandinsky or Klee, discovering that individuals have been kinder to these they thought have been like them.) Santos claimed to be Jewish, as an illustration, when he ran in opposition to Jewish opponents—and presumably wished to seize that voter demographic. (He later claimed he had mentioned he was “Jew-ish,” slightly than “Jewish.”)
When all else fails, emotion, emotion, emotion. The extra emotional we’re, the extra possible we’re to provide somebody the advantage of the doubt and put our logic apart. Santos’s mom dying due to 9/11 was apparently false. A few of his staff dying within the Pulse nightclub shootings was additionally apparently false. His grandparents surviving the Holocaust, once more, seems to have been fabricated. As Demara, the grasp con artist, as soon as put it, People wish to be favored greater than they wish to be proper. We’d slightly err on the facet of sympathy than mistrust. My coronary heart goes out to the sufferer of tragedy—and if I believe he’s making it up, I’ll preserve it to myself.
Certain, there are requires Santos to resign, and a Home ethics investigation may be coming, to look into a number of complaints about his conduct. “A sick pet,” Senator Mitt Romney referred to as Santos on the State of the Union. And but he’s nonetheless in Congress, head apparently not bowed in disgrace.
By Maria Konnikova
If you purchase a e-book utilizing a hyperlink on this web page, we obtain a fee. Thanks for supporting The Atlantic.
