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.

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.

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.

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-...

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.

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.

I don't know, his investors were mostly rich people wanting to get richer. I don't feel empathy for those people either.

> but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely.

Not an argument.

> And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations.

Not an argument.

If you're going to disagree with someone, generally, some logic as to why is useful, not just "I don't agree". Madoff certainly deserves that label, he ruined lives by running the biggest investment scam in history: he clearly didn't in any way care about what happened to those other people, completely lacking in empathy, they were used and discarded.

What definition of "sociopath" are you using here? How do you third-hand diagnose a man as completely lacking in empathy? Can we somehow use this skill for good instead of boring internet commentary?

I'm not third hand diagnosing anyone, I'm not diagnosing anyone, and I'm not the one who even brought up the term sociopath as I'm not the OP; I simply said he deserves the label given what he's done. So if you're bored, feel free to go somewhere else.

I would stay away from the term sociopath because whether or not someone is a sociopath depends entirely on their feelings. And it's quite clearly impossible to know the emotions of another person and whether they experienced guilt/remorse/regret/empathy for their actions, regardless of their facial expressions.

I've also read the Nuremberg Diary. That book, and Hannah Arendt's famous phrase "banality of evil" have influenced my thinking in this area. People who do very bad things are not necessarily "less than human" or "exceptionally inhuman," although it's easy to make that assumption.

Anyway, I think the concept of a sociopath is entirely theoretical. Until we can scientifically determine what someone is feeling by hooking them up to a machine and reading their emotions as we present them with various scenarios (i.e. a Voigt-Kampff device) then why even bother throwing around such a sensationalized word?

As far as Madoff goes, I never understood the obsession with branding him as notably evil. He stole a lot of money from a lot of people and lied to a lot of people. But the notoriety of that case has more to do with him being an upstanding member of society i.e. "the last person you would expect" (also the scale of the fraud). I don't believe his theft is morally more egregious than millions of other thefts that are committed every day.

Psychopaths actually have reduced activity in the orbital cortex of the brain, which can be objectively measured. Not sure if it's a feature of all true psychopaths, but it's apparently quite common.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-psychopath-brain-looks...

Declaring that someone must clearly have no empathy because they hurt people they didn't even know is also not an argument.

Actually it is an argument as that's one of the defining characteristics of the condition, it's not a great argument because I don't know how he feels, but it's more than just "I disagree" which is no argument at all. In any case, I'm not the OP, I didn't call him a sociopath, I merely said he deserved the label.

How much empathy do you have for the hundreds of people dying in car crashes each day? Not much, or you'd be crippled. It is ridiculous to look at low empathy for strangers and declare no empathy for anyone. So you don't even reach the prerequisite that would let you start to talk about the manifestations of sociopathy.

Bernies victims weren't strangers to him, your point is a strawman.

Do you have some info to back that up? A quote like "worked the so-called 'Jewish circuit' of well-heeled Jews he met at country clubs on Long Island and in Palm Beach." doesn't make it sound like these were people he knew well.

(And taking a loan from a friend while it was collapsing is a sign of desperation, something anyone could do, so don't quote me that particular interaction.)

You're moving the goal post, having empathy for people you've met and conned is in no way comparable to empathizing over countless victims of car crashes of people you've never met; car crash victims are a statistic, his marks were people he met and conned into investing. Google for five minutes, plenty of his victims met him, these weren't statistics, they were people he stole from using his charm. If you want to sit here and try to defend Madoff, be my guest because clearly, you just want to argue, so I'm done listening.

Not every sleezy salesperson in the world is a sociopath. You can meet someone in a business context without caring much about them, while not being a sociopath.

It's not 'defending' someone's actions to say that there is no proof of an extreme lack of empathy.

> Not every sleezy salesperson in the world is a sociopath.

Strawman, never said they were. You're arguing with yourself now.

> 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.

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.

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

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... :)

It was part of my point, but not the main part. My main point is that Holmes and Madoff are potentially different - that I think Madoff is probably a sociopath is only part of that. That is hard to objectively establish. But what is objectively established is that Madoff knew what he was doing. I am unsure if Holmes is knowingly scamming people. My main concern with the comment I replied to is that, based on my reading, they implied Madoff may have unknowingly defrauded people, which is not the case. He knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, is-or-is-not-a-sociopath became the most commented on part.

Thanks for applying the principle of charity! (In case the tone of my text is unclear, that is a genuine sentiment.)

Sure, I got that. I misspoke a bit when I saw "that was his point". You used the sociopath statement not as the main point, but to drive that point. Not knowing (even possibly), is much different than definitely knowing and not caring. It's a double edged sword, in that the label quickly illustrates the difference you are pointing out, but then you have to deal with people focusing on the word and not the point. That makes it appropriate to use IMO, though sometimes self-defeating. :/

Oh, I wasn't correcting you! Just re-iterating in my own words what my intentions were. And, agreed.

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.

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.

> 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/

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.

Not so (if I understand your point). They were using the competitor systems on a few drops of blood. I read they were diluting the blood and then correcting the results. This is doing the same thing without the tech in the hopes that they would eventually make their tech work

Interesting, didn't realize they were using finger pricks (few drops of blood) on machines designed for venous draws. I guess the important point is that whatever they tried didn't deliver real value to their users (i.e. they did not 'make something people want').

I think you're absolutely right here -- and I would add the other meme common in that headspace: "No one knows what they're doing", a meme I also hate with a passion.

For all we know, Holmes could have harbored grave doubts about the viability of the tech, based on doing all the right sanity checks. But if she took the meme seriously, "hey, no one else knows what they're doing, no one knows why anything works, they just meander through life and things eventually fall into place. Once you have enough status, you're bulletproof, right?"

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

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.

> 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.

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.