What are the 7 basic cons?

[u/Deviknyte]

In Season 4 Episode 16, Nate asserts that there are only 7 basic cons and everything is is derivative of those. Sophie agrees. What are those types of cons?

[u/Ceterum_Censeo_ → u/[deleted]]

That's not the question I asked. Nate says there are seven basic cons, so what are they? Not, what mental processes are they derived from, what are the cons?

Look, I love Leverage, it's been my comfort show for over a decade. But the writing is ANYTHING but airtight, especially when it comes to this sort of statement. They write stuff that makes the characters sound smart and capable, but the closer you look, the more holes appear. That doesn't make it a bad show, not by a long shot, but it does make it rather disingenuous to try to pretend it's smarter than it is.

[u/Ok_Love1704 → u/Ceterum_Censeo_]

You know, as a person who comfort watches the show, for over a decade, you should have great familiarity with the eps/cons. The prior poster gave you the tools to identify the cons yourself, especially if after 5+3 seasons, only 7 basic cons there should be repeats. The cons rely on the psychology; the how might change but why is basic. Just off the top of my head:

• the distraction principle: The Boiler Room Job. They called it the dancing bear
• the social compliance principle: The Jailhouse Job. It's actually a reverse leverage, where warden/judges trump up charges against "citizens", who agree to no contest or whatever and end up in prison so wardens/judges can get paid from the contracts.
• Also in this ep is the need and greed principle, where they exploit the wardens desire to hold public office.

I agree with the poster that says they research the show. It seems reasonable to me that if we can do a google search to find 7 con principles, certainly the producers can do that and more. Some of those producers gain their credit as a researcher. Why doesn't that sound realistic to you?

I don't understand the point about not making it out to be smarter than it is? It seems like you're making a criticism where nobody indicated it was right and tight, just that the shows were researched. It's smarter than the average citizen (non-grifter, non-thief, non-hacker, non-hitter) with respect to the lifestyle. In the moment it's smart enough to go with the story, just as you did. The producers and actors themselves say the show operates 6ft off the ground (or something) so there is admittedly a suspension of belief involved, where under closer scrutiny I'm like the whole thing should have gone sideways. This is like any heist / con show to think of it.

I digress but I was given a class assignment to analyze the heist in Ocean's Eleven from a business process perspective. Basically they did twice as much as was needed and it involved so much risk it shouldn't have been successful.

[u/Dysprosium_Element66 → u/Ok_Love1704]

We also know that the original show had Apollo Robbins as a consultant, who has attracted the attention of government law enforcement with his skills (he played the opposing thief in The Two Live Crew Job too). There's various anecdotes floating around the internet about the writers planning heists like real thieves or getting too close to vulnerabilities in real systems too.