← Back to context

Comment by slg

3 hours ago

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying she's innocent. I'm saying this idea of her being guilty is incompatible with this view that she's just a stupid person with no self-awareness who doesn't know when to shut up. One of those two descriptions of her is wrong.

That's why I referenced that Fielder quote. Either she's innocent (unlikely) or she's an incredibly self-aware person with a remarkable degree of social intelligence. The image she's painting of herself is too expertly constructed for her to have gotten there accidentally, it's either the truth or a deftly orchestrated piece of fiction. You can't manipulate people to the level she has been accused of through nothing but dumb luck.

I don’t agree with this view towards two options. Humans are complex and reducing it to this narrative eliminates so many possible narratives where she could be incredibly self aware in one compartment and also completely delusional in another. Multiplied by 50 different dimensions.

  • Once again, I'm being misunderstood. I agree with you generally, but we aren't talking about 50 different dimensions of her character. It's not like I'm not saying her behavior at Theranos indicates something about the type of mother she is to her kids. I'm saying if she's a manipulator she's a masterful and self-aware manipulator. That just one compartment.