Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

None of it is fake. People are complex, that's all. Elizabeth Holmes did her best to attract investments (Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc), which was very business savvy. She then lied to investors and went entirely over the legal line. It doesn't mean she does not have a motherly side.

I find this entire discussion to be actually very demeaning to women in high-powered careers: they need to project a certain way at work. Then they go home and enjoy a warmer aspect of their personality with their kids. It's entirely NORMAL.

But here this article, and this discussion, will associate such a dichotomy with criminality and possible psychopathy. It's incredibly damaging to working women to question why they behave differently at work than at home with their kids. Because essentially, this is what OP and the author are trying to do.
Have articles been written about males behaving differently at work and with their kids? Whether or not they are criminals? NO!

You can criticize this woman all you want for her crimes. But don't claim that just because you're seeing another side of her now, it's all put on and fake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her superpower is that she is capable of convincing those around her of many imaginative things (visionary, leadership quality.). Her downfall is that she does this by convincing herself, and by choosing to not see any difficult or inconvenient truths. Her criminality is that she uses these abilities to further her own status, even if that means destroying peoples lives. I think she can rationalize almost any choice she makes. Many CEO’s have sociopathic tendencies but in her case it’s a fundamental lack of character and personal integrity which makes her unstable.

Her whole “persecuted because I was a women in tech defense is insulting and her pivot to sympathetic baby mama is farcical. She invents whoever she thinks she needs to be to escape reality. She is a showman, an actress, as her dad said, but one who dangerously believes/becomes her own characters.

I think this may be the most correct take.

Also, Gone Girl was on this weekend and I think she's the real-life version of Amazing Amy. Total chameleon who will do whatever she needs to in order to survive and retain attention. When I read she named her daughter Invicta, I was like, nope. My only question(s) now are how long can she put off her imprisonment and does she go on the run?

Anonymous wrote:Her superpower is that she is capable of convincing those around her of many imaginative things (visionary, leadership quality.). Her downfall is that she does this by convincing herself, and by choosing to not see any difficult or inconvenient truths. Her criminality is that she uses these abilities to further her own status, even if that means destroying peoples lives. I think she can rationalize almost any choice she makes. Many CEO’s have sociopathic tendencies but in her case it’s a fundamental lack of character and personal integrity which makes her unstable.

Her whole “persecuted because I was a women in tech defense is insulting and her pivot to sympathetic baby mama is farcical. She invents whoever she thinks she needs to be to escape reality. She is a showman, an actress, as her dad said, but one who dangerously believes/becomes her own characters.

Anonymous wrote:I'm with the crowd decrying the NY Times doing this profile at all. I get there haven't been many (well, any recent) interviews with her, she's clearly news, and a media outlet would be nuts to turn down the chance to interview her. And I think the author of this piece thinks she covered Holmes's ability to be duplicitous. But this is simply too close to a celebrity profile - no meat to it at all.

I also think it's possible to hold many ideas at once - she did bad things. She was probably naive when it started but at some point needed to own up to her management. She is likely extra vilified because she is a woman, and started this as a young woman who relied on her weirdly fake image.

But she's a fraud, she defrauded investors and broke the law, and she is going to jail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it, I just don’t care.

+1 and why does the NYT think that she needs a heartwarming reboot? Gross.

Anonymous wrote:I read it, I just don’t care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holmes knew her technology was scientifically impossible when a female mentor professor told her so at Stanford. She deliberately misled everyone from the word go.

She is a malignant narcissist, if you needed no other proof the fact that she intentionally brought two children into the world knowing full well she was likely headed to prison for a decade is all the evidence you need. She could have waited. If she cared about the well being of her children, she would have waited.

She refuses to be accountable and shows no remorse. Malignant narcissist, possibly a sociopath. She belongs in prison where she cannot run another grift for a decade or so.

+1. She's adopted another persona to blend into this new role. Still a sociopath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

I think the point was that it's complicated. The fake stuff was fake. There is real stuff under that. I think this "real stuff" is being revealed strategically rather than genuinely, but I do think it's real. I think that was the reporter's point. She knew it was fake, and she could still see the real stuff, which is compelling enough that it's fairly easy to forget the fake stuff.

There's nothing real about her "science". It was 100% BS and one of her Stanford professors tried calling her out for years. But nobody paid heed because greed and lust seemed to cloud their eyes.

Anonymous wrote:Holmes knew her technology was scientifically impossible when a female mentor professor told her so at Stanford. She deliberately misled everyone from the word go.

She is a malignant narcissist, if you needed no other proof the fact that she intentionally brought two children into the world knowing full well she was likely headed to prison for a decade is all the evidence you need. She could have waited. If she cared about the well being of her children, she would have waited.

She refuses to be accountable and shows no remorse. Malignant narcissist, possibly a sociopath. She belongs in prison where she cannot run another grift for a decade or so.