8 ms·

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 perfo

by 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.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Right, empathy or sympathy would have meant that among other options, in his continued lies to investors, "We made a very bad trade, got into Company X, who went bankrupt / were delisted". He could have shut it down. He chose not to.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Brains don't handle scale well. Defrauding a thousand people can be easier empathy-wise than defrauding a single person, because it's a statistic rather than an individual. You cannot use the total scale in trying to judge whether someone has empathy. The impulse to associate 'bad actions' with 'inherently bad people' can make it harder for people to realize when they are acting badly and to pull out. http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-why-good-people-do-bad-things http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-...
    - wmil 10y ago
      Madoff was quite unusual because he was very actively involved in the upperclass Jewish philanthropic community. It's also where most of his victims came from. That's one of the reasons he was able to get away with it for so long. People assumed that he wouldn't steal from members of his own community like that. So most observers assumed he found a way to front run trades on his other funds without getting caught, and were looking for evidence of that.
oldmanjay 10y ago
Why do you think you have such powerful psychiatric skills that you can third-hand diagnose a man?
- kbenson 10y ago
  He very clearly expressed it as an opinion. HN as a community seems more aware and mindful of mental health and illness issues (which is good!), but we need to be careful to not let over-sensitivity prevent rational discourse. Is using the sociopath label premature or unsubstantiated? Possibly, I know I'm not qualified to assess that, but he does support his reasoning, even if it's wrong. If he had said, "Based on my understanding of what a sociopath is, and the facts as I understand them from Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen", I think Madoff is a borderline sociopath at least, and possibly an outright sociopath." would you have taken as much offense? Does that sentence not express a useful point of view with respect to the argument that Madoff is different than Holmes? It's tricky, because our good-intentioned attempts to improve discourse can actually have the effect of stifling discourse when this tendency progresses farther. There are many topics that fall under race and sex that it's hard to rationally discuss because people view the asking of the question itself as insensitive. For example, try posing a question about advantages of a population (race, sex, insular group) based on genetics in a submission here that's related in some way, and you might find you've been down voted and possibly called racist or sexist (likely in more words but to the same effect) prior to anyone actually paying attention to the question you're really trying to ask, and whether it has merit. It's hard for people to stay rational when someone questions the foundations upon which we build a lot of our beliefs (such as people are born equal). I find a good rule-of-thumb for me in situations where I feel the need to call out the method in which someone raised a point, but not necessarily the point itself, is to pose it as a question and ask whether the method they chose really helped or hindered their point, and to try to do so in a way that's not condescending (which I hope you don't take this comment as, it's surely not intended that way). For example: "Is the label sociopath really appropriate, and do you think it was needed to make your point?" In this case, I think scott_s does think it's appropriate (that was made clear), and because of that is was his point. Now, if the original comment was something like "You can't compare Madoff to Holmes, he's in a different category because he's a sociopath." then I would think differently, as there's little useful substance to that comment and it's not really substantiated. Okay, got that off my chest. Feel free to ignore as you see fit... :)

by scott_s 10y ago

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.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Right, empathy or sympathy would have meant that among other options, in his continued lies to investors, "We made a very bad trade, got into Company X, who went bankrupt / were delisted". He could have shut it down. He chose not to.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Brains don't handle scale well. Defrauding a thousand people can be easier empathy-wise than defrauding a single person, because it's a statistic rather than an individual. You cannot use the total scale in trying to judge whether someone has empathy. The impulse to associate 'bad actions' with 'inherently bad people' can make it harder for people to realize when they are acting badly and to pull out. http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-why-good-people-do-bad-things http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534/psychology-of-fraud-...
  - wmil 10y ago
    Madoff was quite unusual because he was very actively involved in the upperclass Jewish philanthropic community. It's also where most of his victims came from. That's one of the reasons he was able to get away with it for so long. People assumed that he wouldn't steal from members of his own community like that. So most observers assumed he found a way to front run trades on his other funds without getting caught, and were looking for evidence of that.

oldmanjay 10y ago

Why do you think you have such powerful psychiatric skills that you can third-hand diagnose a man?

kbenson 10y ago
He very clearly expressed it as an opinion. HN as a community seems more aware and mindful of mental health and illness issues (which is good!), but we need to be careful to not let over-sensitivity prevent rational discourse. Is using the sociopath label premature or unsubstantiated? Possibly, I know I'm not qualified to assess that, but he does support his reasoning, even if it's wrong. If he had said, "Based on my understanding of what a sociopath is, and the facts as I understand them from Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen", I think Madoff is a borderline sociopath at least, and possibly an outright sociopath." would you have taken as much offense? Does that sentence not express a useful point of view with respect to the argument that Madoff is different than Holmes? It's tricky, because our good-intentioned attempts to improve discourse can actually have the effect of stifling discourse when this tendency progresses farther. There are many topics that fall under race and sex that it's hard to rationally discuss because people view the asking of the question itself as insensitive. For example, try posing a question about advantages of a population (race, sex, insular group) based on genetics in a submission here that's related in some way, and you might find you've been down voted and possibly called racist or sexist (likely in more words but to the same effect) prior to anyone actually paying attention to the question you're really trying to ask, and whether it has merit. It's hard for people to stay rational when someone questions the foundations upon which we build a lot of our beliefs (such as people are born equal). I find a good rule-of-thumb for me in situations where I feel the need to call out the method in which someone raised a point, but not necessarily the point itself, is to pose it as a question and ask whether the method they chose really helped or hindered their point, and to try to do so in a way that's not condescending (which I hope you don't take this comment as, it's surely not intended that way). For example: "Is the label sociopath really appropriate, and do you think it was needed to make your point?" In this case, I think scott_s does think it's appropriate (that was made clear), and because of that is was his point. Now, if the original comment was something like "You can't compare Madoff to Holmes, he's in a different category because he's a sociopath." then I would think differently, as there's little useful substance to that comment and it's not really substantiated. Okay, got that off my chest. Feel free to ignore as you see fit... :)