14 ms·

Not sure if scam is the right word. Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justif

Not sure if scam is the right word. Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future (when everything works, out of course). I'm sure even Bernie Madoff believed at some point he would win it all back and no one would ever know or be harmed.

jonknee 10y ago
Yes, but the internal justifications of a scam artists are just that. It's still a scam to everyone else!
- pyre 10y ago
  I think that parent is classifying a "true" scam as one where the scammer knows that they are scamming and just doesn't care. 419 scammers take money away from people and have no intention to ever "make things right." They may have internal justifications that "rich Westerners" can afford it, but that's slightly different than justifying that your tech will work out (or that our pyramid scheme will work out) in the end.
scott_s 10y ago
I don't agree with your characterization of Bernie Madoff. He knew he was running a scam. He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. (See Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen"; that's how Markopolos figured out it was a scam.) I think Madoff is, at the least, a borderline sociopath. (If not an outright one.) A sociopath may think they can get away with it, and no one will know, but they probably don't think no one will be harmed - a sociopath does not care about harming others. I think it's possible Holmes fits your description - she was in over her head, never set out to scam anyone, and slid down a very bad path without ever intending to. I don't know this is the case, but I believe it's possible. That, however, is not Madoff.
- mbesto 10y ago
  > He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. Theranos marketing materials lied. Only difference is they changed the marketing materials after they got caught. > never set out to scam anyone How do you know? Maybe that's been part of her scam...to operate it under the guise of a venture funded startup. The difference between Madoff and Holmes is that Madoff's scam is purely financial, so it's easy to understand motive. It's slightly harder to understand for Holmes' case and the verdict is still out.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    Your quote removed the qualifiers from what I said. What I said, in full: "I think it's possible Holmes fits your description - she was in over her head, never set out to scam anyone, and slid down a very bad path without ever intending to. I don't know this is the case, but I believe it's possible." So, to answer your question, I don't know, which I clearly said. However, I think it is possible that Holmes was not intentionally running a scam, but allowed herself to be deluded by her own story. Again, to be clear, I do not know this is the case. I think it is possibly true. To me, this is different from Madoff, where we know he knowingly ran a scam.
- tps5 10y ago
  I never paid much attention to the details of the Madoff case but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not much is gained from that label, in my opinion. And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    I use the word because, based on his actions, I think he does not have empathy for other people. He knowingly defrauded thousands of people, often depleting all of their savings. The scale of his fraud, and the length of time he perpetuated it, is staggering.
kordless 10y ago
> Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future This is dissonance, defined. Seeing one's actions as maybe being justified later is just rationalizing using other's feelings or thoughts. It's not cool to speak for others and if one is not careful, they can burn their entire life down around themselves.
nnain 10y ago
That's a very convenient excuse: "I thought I was right". Doesn't make a scam any less so. My bigger grudge with Theranos' founder and the likes is their hoax seriously hurts the startup industry culture. Some people get really confused, some start following in these footsteps, some even lose direction with so much mis-information flying around. The chest thumping hotshots suck up too much energy and resources from the ecosystem.
gmarx 10y ago
Isn't this just a combination of generally admired startup behavior (fake it til you make it) combined with a business on which people's health might depend? When I read that they were using regular lab test machines to perform the majority of tests, it struck me as pretty much what my YC friends reported as received wisdom- that it's legit to start out doing it "by hand" before you get your tech working.
- sseveran 10y ago
  Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". At its core a startup (and its founders and investors) are typically making a contrarian bet that must be right. Theranos bet that it could use a small amount of blood could be used to the same effect of much larger blood draws. It has turned out that this was not right at this point in time. If its technology worked we would not be reading this news story. Of course while every company wants to paint itself in the best light it is probably best not to engage in outright deception. If discovered that can be fatal.
  - mbesto 10y ago
    > Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". Unfortunately, many of them start that way, especially those that reap the benefits of network effects. Anecdote: http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/
- jasonlaramburu 10y ago
  I don't think so. As I understood, their core value proposition was that they could deliver detailed, accurate blood test results with just a few drops of blood and their proprietary analysis technology. In reality, they used traditional venous draws (way more than a few drops), and competitors' systems to deliver test results of lower accuracy than their competitors. If they were really 'doing it by hand,' they would have still delivered on their core value prop of detailed results with only a few drops of blood.
  - gmarx 10y ago

jonknee 10y ago

Yes, but the internal justifications of a scam artists are just that. It's still a scam to everyone else!

pyre 10y ago
I think that parent is classifying a "true" scam as one where the scammer knows that they are scamming and just doesn't care. 419 scammers take money away from people and have no intention to ever "make things right." They may have internal justifications that "rich Westerners" can afford it, but that's slightly different than justifying that your tech will work out (or that our pyramid scheme will work out) in the end.

scott_s 10y ago

I don't agree with your characterization of Bernie Madoff. He knew he was running a scam. He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. (See Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen"; that's how Markopolos figured out it was a scam.) I think Madoff is, at the least, a borderline sociopath. (If not an outright one.) A sociopath may think they can get away with it, and no one will know, but they probably don't think no one will be harmed - a sociopath does not care about harming others. I think it's possible Holmes fits your description - she was in over her head, never set out to scam anyone, and slid down a very bad path without ever intending to. I don't know this is the case, but I believe it's possible. That, however, is not Madoff.

mbesto 10y ago
> He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. Theranos marketing materials lied. Only difference is they changed the marketing materials after they got caught. > never set out to scam anyone How do you know? Maybe that's been part of her scam...to operate it under the guise of a venture funded startup. The difference between Madoff and Holmes is that Madoff's scam is purely financial, so it's easy to understand motive. It's slightly harder to understand for Holmes' case and the verdict is still out.
- scott_s 10y ago
  Your quote removed the qualifiers from what I said. What I said, in full: "I think it's possible Holmes fits your description - she was in over her head, never set out to scam anyone, and slid down a very bad path without ever intending to. I don't know this is the case, but I believe it's possible." So, to answer your question, I don't know, which I clearly said. However, I think it is possible that Holmes was not intentionally running a scam, but allowed herself to be deluded by her own story. Again, to be clear, I do not know this is the case. I think it is possibly true. To me, this is different from Madoff, where we know he knowingly ran a scam.
tps5 10y ago
I never paid much attention to the details of the Madoff case but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not much is gained from that label, in my opinion. And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations.
- scott_s 10y ago
  I use the word because, based on his actions, I think he does not have empathy for other people. He knowingly defrauded thousands of people, often depleting all of their savings. The scale of his fraud, and the length of time he perpetuated it, is staggering.

kordless 10y ago

> Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future This is dissonance, defined. Seeing one's actions as maybe being justified later is just rationalizing using other's feelings or thoughts. It's not cool to speak for others and if one is not careful, they can burn their entire life down around themselves.

nnain 10y ago

That's a very convenient excuse: "I thought I was right". Doesn't make a scam any less so. My bigger grudge with Theranos' founder and the likes is their hoax seriously hurts the startup industry culture. Some people get really confused, some start following in these footsteps, some even lose direction with so much mis-information flying around. The chest thumping hotshots suck up too much energy and resources from the ecosystem.

gmarx 10y ago

Isn't this just a combination of generally admired startup behavior (fake it til you make it) combined with a business on which people's health might depend? When I read that they were using regular lab test machines to perform the majority of tests, it struck me as pretty much what my YC friends reported as received wisdom- that it's legit to start out doing it "by hand" before you get your tech working.

sseveran 10y ago
Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". At its core a startup (and its founders and investors) are typically making a contrarian bet that must be right. Theranos bet that it could use a small amount of blood could be used to the same effect of much larger blood draws. It has turned out that this was not right at this point in time. If its technology worked we would not be reading this news story. Of course while every company wants to paint itself in the best light it is probably best not to engage in outright deception. If discovered that can be fatal.
- mbesto 10y ago
  > Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". Unfortunately, many of them start that way, especially those that reap the benefits of network effects. Anecdote: http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/
jasonlaramburu 10y ago
I don't think so. As I understood, their core value proposition was that they could deliver detailed, accurate blood test results with just a few drops of blood and their proprietary analysis technology. In reality, they used traditional venous draws (way more than a few drops), and competitors' systems to deliver test results of lower accuracy than their competitors. If they were really 'doing it by hand,' they would have still delivered on their core value prop of detailed results with only a few drops of blood.
- gmarx 10y ago