I thought the article was interesting, but this footnote left me cold:
“How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? ... Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by [frauds]“
The world is full of “thoughtful” people who have been taken in by frauds - Theranos is a recent example - and so I think this is pretty terrible advice in general - although I can see how it might work in certain contexts.
For example, frauds often seem to work on smart people who aren’t smart in the specific field in which the fraud operates.
> For example, frauds often seem to work on smart people who aren’t smart in the specific field in which the fraud operates.
It also works where smart people are experts in the field the fraud operates. One of the greatest frauds in science was one where an archaeologist ( amateur ) duped the experts.
Is it? What ideology was that? It seemed to me like people were legitimately taken in by her. At least, that's what I got from reading Bad Blood. It didn't seem like there was any particular unifying ideology of the investors/believers in Theranos. Some people seemed to like it for its female empowerment narrative, maybe, but I don't think that was a major component for most of the prominent people involved.
Ideology is another word for narrative, and Holmes worked very hard to sell a narrative where she was a disruptive genius who would revolutionise [stale old thing that needed to be disrupted] by sheer force of will and outstanding talent.
Does that narrative not sound a little familiar?
Being a woman genius took it to another level.
It's possible Holmes actually sold the narrative to herself at least as much as she sold it to everyone else.
(But that's not an unfamiliar story either.)
The worrying thing is that Holmes blanked out legitimate criticism. Perhaps she even labelled legitimate critics as haters.
That's an overtly cult-like move. Outsiders who are not aligned with the goal of the cult - often powered by a cult of personality - are dismissed, when in fact their criticisms are realistic and appropriate.
In fact what makes fanboys and haters so annoying is obsessive irrationality. They're noisy, but worryingly content-free.
But not everyone is irrational, and both outsiders and insiders may have valid and considered non-obsessive opinions. Those opinions may be positive, or they may be critical - both for perfectly valid reasons.
“How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? ... Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by [frauds]“
The world is full of “thoughtful” people who have been taken in by frauds - Theranos is a recent example - and so I think this is pretty terrible advice in general - although I can see how it might work in certain contexts.
For example, frauds often seem to work on smart people who aren’t smart in the specific field in which the fraud operates.