Item — HN Reader

"I think the connection between scientology and Elizabeth Holmes is the “prison of belief”. Look at what happens to [Theranos board member] George Shultz – the grandfather of [eventual whistleblower] Tyler Shultz; the noted Secretary of State. Even when his grandson comes to him and says, “You know Grandpa, there’s rampant fraud at Theranos”, he can’t undo or retract or unwind the belief that he has. He’s in a prison of belief of Elizabeth Holmes. He’s committed to her, and for him to say, “Oh wow, that’s terrible”, would mean that he has to go back to the beginning and admit that he was duped and fooled."

In the social sciences, they call this 'belief perseverance'. To take this to an extreme, think of how many generations of people were convinced of geocentrism.

3 comments

I think that captured the key essence of a lot of the fraud that goes on. Essentially you have people who consider themselves to be reasonably critical thinkers, and the dissonance of how wrong they were is so great that the external information is rejected. Being aware of this effect is critical for people who want to be active listeners. You have to accept the possibility that the information you are hearing that goes against everything you believe, might be true, and then work to understand whether or not you can test the two disjoint beliefs for validity.

Were I in the position George found himself in, I would start by asking deeper questions about how the process works, how it fails, and how one can test that it is working as expected. If people get evasive it lends credence to the dissonant information, if they are forthcoming and have answers to the questions, it tends to support the core belief. "Trust but verify" is often used in this sort of context.

Always listen for meta-data and probe it when it throws up red flags. When someone gets angry in response to what seems like a simple question, follow that anger to see where it originates.

Good points, these are useful ways to confront it. Sometimes, I also think of Andy Grove's motto, "only the paranoid survive", which helps to check and challenge ideas.

Imagine if you invest some money into what becomes a 9 billion dollar valuation company. That valuation is before they've really gone to mass market with their product.

If their product had worked, after a few years the return on investment could have been substantial. It would have been significant loss pulling money out before release to mass market.

George Shultz is 98 years old. It's not like you can take your money to the grave. I would like to imagine he was doing all this for his family. I would also like to imagine that if you have a 9 billion dollar valuation company, and you bring together the right talent, Holmes could have somehow pulled off at least some value added breakthrough.

The real issue was when they started to lie and put people's safety at risk. But theranos had significant social proof. Whatever fraud or risks could have been brushed off as non systemic

That's certainly one view.

I'm sure there will be many books and case studies on this as time passes and more facts are revealed. Tangible evidence (e.g., taped conversations) would be interesting. I'd want to hear what people like George Shultz were saying, and how they were reasoning these things in the timeline. I think this is a historic case worth learning from.

>> "I think the connection between scientology and Elizabeth Holmes is the “prison of belief”.

I see that a lot. People just want to believe, they want to follow, to find someone to show them the way. Shine a bright light in the darkness and people will flock to you and sit at your feet and follow in your footsteps even if you don't know where you're going. And you don't; you never do. Your little light can only cut the darkness so far ahead of you.

Sometimes you genuinely want to find a way, sometimes you're just shining a light to attract suckers, like an angler fish. But people will always come to you if you promise them all the answers- and often stick around long after they know you have nothing, because there's nothing left for them to do. They can check out, but they can never leave.

This is interesting, there's something deep in many humans' tendency to follow.

I wonder if it has something to do with being in a world (i.e., a "system") that people are still trying to understand? Over time, science tools like microscopes and telescopes have helped individuals shift their thoughts on the way the world works. I wonder what the next breakthrough tools will be to help us advance our grasp of the world?