The Art of the Con: Psychoanalytic Reflections on Deception and Self-Deception
We tend to think of “conning” as something that happens out in the world—a trickster on the street, a scam in our inbox. But deception also plays out in the psyche, and sometimes in the consulting room itself. Certain personality structures are especially prone to conning others. Psychoanalysis invites us to look beneath the surface: What inner conflicts fuel this behavior? And why can even experienced therapists be fooled?
Who Cons Whom?
Not all forms of dishonesty are alike. Small lies are part of everyday life, often serving to protect others’ feelings or preserve harmony. But when conning becomes central to someone’s way of relating, it usually points to deeper structural issues.
Antisocial personality structures: Here, conning can appear as a core mode of interaction. The other is not experienced as a subject with feelings, but as an object to be used, manipulated, or exploited. Aggression, entitlement, and thrill-seeking often dominate.
Narcissistic personalities: Deception may serve the need to maintain a grandiose self-image. Exaggerating achievements, concealing failures, or creating illusions of perfection are ways of defending against deep shame and emptiness.
Borderline and hysterical structures: Conning may emerge less as cold exploitation and more as dramatization or manipulation to secure love, attention, or survival. The deception here often carries desperation rather than cynicism.
The Function of the Con
From a psychoanalytic perspective, conning is rarely “just” about tricking others. It reflects inner conflict. At its root, deception is often about protecting a fragile self from unbearable realities.
To con is to control: If I can manipulate you, I need not fear being exposed, abandoned, or humiliated.
To con is to deny dependency: The trickster avoids the vulnerability of needing others by turning them into dupes.
To con is to project aggression: By deceiving, the con artist “acts out” hostile feelings toward parental figures, authority, or society itself.
Behind the confident exterior of the con lies anxiety: the terror of being small, needy, or unworthy.
Why We Believe the Con
Even therapists, trained to detect defenses, can be fooled. Why?
Projective identification: The conning patient induces in the therapist the very belief they need them to hold. The therapist feels the pull to admire, rescue, or collude.
Countertransference: Therapists are human. They, too, may want to see themselves as effective or trusting, and so they unconsciously cooperate with the deception.
The patient’s charm: Many who con are skilled at reading unconscious wishes in others. They intuit what someone longs to hear and offer it back.
In this way, the con is not only a lie but a form of unconscious communication. The patient may be saying: Can you see through me? Can you tolerate my aggression, my emptiness, my need—without abandoning me?
The Tragedy of the Con
While conning can bring short-term triumph, it often leaves a trail of loneliness. Relationships built on deception lack depth. The con artist may appear powerful but is secretly imprisoned by their own tricks, unable to trust others or to be truly known.
In therapy, the turning point comes when the deception itself becomes the material of analysis—not exposed with moral outrage, but understood as a defense against unbearable psychic pain. Only then can the patient risk dropping the mask.
Conclusion
Conning others is not only a social maneuver but a psychic defense, protecting against shame, dependency, and fear of loss. Those who deceive may appear confident, but beneath the surface lies fragility and dread. To be “fooled” by such a patient is not a therapeutic failure—it is part of the analytic process. The work is to recognize the con not as mere manipulation but as a coded message from the unconscious: a plea to be seen beyond the deception.
References
Freud, S. (1914). On Narcissism: An Introduction. Standard Edition, Vol. 14.
Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson.
Kohut, H. (1971). The Analysis of the Self. New York: International Universities Press.
McWilliams, N. (2011). Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.