Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?

[laughing dog]

Trausti, the more interesting question is why you think female privilege is a thing but white privilege is not.

If Holmes was a dude no one would have fallen for the fraud. But the Establishment was so desperate for a female tech success that it overlooked the red flags.

Riiight - there are no instances of male con men defrauding investors.

Trausti did not say that, and neither does that follow from what Trausti said.

No one claimed Trausti said it. I made a sarcastic response to Trausti's hand-waved claim. Con artists come in all genders and sexes - Trausti's observation had no evidence-driven basis.

I'm not sure you've understood Trausti's claim. It wasn't a broad claim about all con artists and situations, but a particular claim: that Holmes's sex in the context of a tech startup increased investor willingness to accept (and forego due diligence in evaluating) the viability of Holmes' business. Specifically, Holmes being a "woman in tech/science" triggered more support from investors in a way that, if Holmes had been a man, she would not or could not have gotten.

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Conjecture is not evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Conjecture is not evidence.

Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

A conjecture is not evidence and nobody claimed it was. But there is evidence for Trausti's conjecture that no man could have pulled off what Holmes did. The evidence is that no man has been able to parlay an obviously fraudulent tech/med idea into a multi-billion dollar company. And if there is such a case, what is it? Where and when did it happen? Any such case would disprove Trausti's conjecture that no man could do it.

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

Perhaps Trausti is wrong. Do you know of a man who peddled such an obviously fraudulent biotech idea into a multi billion dollar company?

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships in those claims.

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships those claims.

There was a specific claim made by Trausti, a claim you 'countered' by constructing a strawman version of Trausti's claim.

I have explained Trausti's claim. I have explained what evidence would contradict Trausti's claim. If you have evidence that contradicts Trausti's claim, I am eager to hear of it.

Evidence that both men and women are successful con artists is not evidence against Trausti's claim, because Trausti's claim is not 'only women can be successful con artists'.

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships those claims.

There was a specific claim made by Trausti, a claim you 'countered' by constructing a strawman version of Trausti's claim.

You are mistaken.

I have explained Trausti's claim. I have explained what evidence would contradict Trausti's claim. If you have evidence that contradicts Trausti's claim, I am eager to hear of it.

You are mistaken. Trausti's opinion has no evidence. There is no logical or rational reason to accept it without convincing evidence. It is up to Trausti and his supporters to either provide a convincing argument or evidence. You have failed to do so.

Evidence that both men and women are successful con artists is not evidence against Trausti's claim, because Trausti's claim is not 'only women can be successful con artists'.

You are mistaken. Trausti's unsupported opinion specifically says no man could have done what Ms, Holmes did. To support such an opinion, it is up to you or Trausti to show why no man could have pulled off some scam to support your opinion. To date, that has not happened.

If you and Trausti wish to believe that no man could have perpetrated the same scam that Ms. Holmes that is your prerogative. But it is unreasonable for anyone (including you) to expect to accept an opinion that is unsupported by evidence or reason.

.

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships those claims.

There was a specific claim made by Trausti, a claim you 'countered' by constructing a strawman version of Trausti's claim.

You are mistaken.

I have explained Trausti's claim. I have explained what evidence would contradict Trausti's claim. If you have evidence that contradicts Trausti's claim, I am eager to hear of it.

You are mistaken. Trausti's opinion has no evidence. There is no logical or rational reason to accept it without convincing evidence. It is up to Trausti and his supporters to either provide a convincing argument or evidence. You have failed to do so.

Evidence that both men and women are successful con artists is not evidence against Trausti's claim, because Trausti's claim is not 'only women can be successful con artists'.

You are mistaken. Trausti's unsupported opinion specifically says no man could have done what Ms, Holmes did. While he (and you) are free to spout any opinion you wish, it is unreasonable for anyone (including you) to expect to accept an opinion that is unsupported by evidence or reason.

Non. Trausti made a specific claim. You generalised the claim into a strawman. I corrected you multiple times.

No man could have done what Holmes did, and the evidence is that no man ever built up a multi-billion dollar biotech company using such an obviously fraudulent idea. I can speculate on a number of reasons why a man could not do it but a woman could (and did).

I suspect many initial investors were virtue-signalling their support of a 'girlboss'--that they felt good about supporting a female leader and particularly a female leader leading a STEM startup.

Some investors (especially later investors) might have been sexist in a different way. Perhaps they thought Holmes's ideas must have been vetted with more scrutiny than a man's ideas would have been, so her idea was in fact more viable than it appeared.

And while both male and female con artists must have personal charisma to be successful, the bulk of investment dollars come from men, and part of Holmes's charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors, an appeal that no male con artist could have exercised on a male investor.

 

[Toni]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

Perhaps Trausti is wrong. Do you know of a man who peddled such an obviously fraudulent biotech idea into a multi billion dollar company?

Balwani. Holmes didn't act alone. Alone, she was highly unlikely to have succeeded.

Also: I do not believe that at 19, Holmes knew her idea was a fraud. I think she 'thought' it was an innovative idea but that was based on her absolute lack of knowledge or comprehension about testing for the diseases she wanted to test for. Really, she just wanted to riff off of other microarrays that look for other things than evidence of infection.

Of course the real question is whether a 19 year old male would have been able to sell his idea to a bunch of greedy rich people. I think that probably they could have done so, under the right tutelage.

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships those claims.

There was a specific claim made by Trausti, a claim you 'countered' by constructing a strawman version of Trausti's claim.

You are mistaken.

I have explained Trausti's claim. I have explained what evidence would contradict Trausti's claim. If you have evidence that contradicts Trausti's claim, I am eager to hear of it.

You are mistaken. Trausti's opinion has no evidence. There is no logical or rational reason to accept it without convincing evidence. It is up to Trausti and his supporters to either provide a convincing argument or evidence. You have failed to do so.

Evidence that both men and women are successful con artists is not evidence against Trausti's claim, because Trausti's claim is not 'only women can be successful con artists'.

You are mistaken. Trausti's unsupported opinion specifically says no man could have done what Ms, Holmes did. While he (and you) are free to spout any opinion you wish, it is unreasonable for anyone (including you) to expect to accept an opinion that is unsupported by evidence or reason.

Non. Trausti made a specific claim. You generalised the claim into a strawman. I corrected you multiple times.

You are mistaken. I made no generalization. Your "correction" is based on your mistake.

No man could have done what Holmes did, and the evidence is that no man ever built up a multi-billion dollar biotech company using such an obviously fraudulent idea. I can speculate on a number of reasons why a man could not do it but a woman could (and did).

That reasoning is fallacious. Using that reasoning, no woman could walk on the moon because no woman has walked on the moon.

Really, your argument is incredibly silly.

I suspect many initial investors were virtue-signalling their support of a 'girlboss'--that they felt good about supporting a female leader and particularly a female leader leading a STEM startup.

Some investors (especially later investors) might have been sexist in a different way. Perhaps they thought Holmes's ideas must have been vetted with more scrutiny than a man's ideas would have been, so her idea was in fact more viable than it appeared.

And while both male and female con artists must have personal charisma to be successful, the bulk of investment dollars come from men, and part of Holmes's charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors, an appeal that no male con artist could have exercised on a male investor.

"Might" and "perhaps" are not convincing arguments if you actually thought about it. The notion that
male con artists cannot have sex appeal to male investors is so incredibly silly, especially coming from an self-proclaimed gay man, Finally, the idea that part of Holmes' charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors is naive, because heterosexual males do not necessarily react to the sexual appeal of a woman.

If that is all that you have, any further responses from you will not be worth reading.

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

Perhaps Trausti is wrong. Do you know of a man who peddled such an obviously fraudulent biotech idea into a multi billion dollar company?

Balwani. Holmes didn't act alone. Alone, she was highly unlikely to have succeeded.

Non. Balwani did not peddle his own biotech company on an obviously fraudulent idea.

Also: I do not believe that at 19, Holmes knew her idea was a fraud.

I did not say she did. I said her idea was obviously fraudulent. You said yourself you would not have believed it for a moment.

I think she 'thought' it was an innovative idea but that was based on her absolute lack of knowledge or comprehension about testing for the diseases she wanted to test for. Really, she just wanted to riff off of other microarrays that look for other things than evidence of infection.

Of course the real question is whether a 19 year old male would have been able to sell his idea to a bunch of greedy rich people. I think that probably they could have done so, under the right tutelage.

That's the point of contention.

I don't know of any 19 year old males (or indeed, males of any age) who sold any obviously fraudulent biotech ideas into a 4.5 billion dollar company. Do you?

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships those claims.

There was a specific claim made by Trausti, a claim you 'countered' by constructing a strawman version of Trausti's claim.

You are mistaken.

I have explained Trausti's claim. I have explained what evidence would contradict Trausti's claim. If you have evidence that contradicts Trausti's claim, I am eager to hear of it.

You are mistaken. Trausti's opinion has no evidence. There is no logical or rational reason to accept it without convincing evidence. It is up to Trausti and his supporters to either provide a convincing argument or evidence. You have failed to do so.

Evidence that both men and women are successful con artists is not evidence against Trausti's claim, because Trausti's claim is not 'only women can be successful con artists'.

You are mistaken. Trausti's unsupported opinion specifically says no man could have done what Ms, Holmes did. While he (and you) are free to spout any opinion you wish, it is unreasonable for anyone (including you) to expect to accept an opinion that is unsupported by evidence or reason.

Non. Trausti made a specific claim. You generalised the claim into a strawman. I corrected you multiple times.

You are mistaken. I made no generalization. Your "correction" is based on your mistake.

Anybody can go back and read what Trausti wrote and what you strawmanned.

No man could have done what Holmes did, and the evidence is that no man ever built up a multi-billion dollar biotech company using such an obviously fraudulent idea. I can speculate on a number of reasons why a man could not do it but a woman could (and did).

That reasoning is fallacious. Using that reasoning, no woman could walk on the moon because no woman has walked on the moon.\

The reasoning is not fallacious. The fact that no man has done what Holmes did, combined with reasons why no man could do it, is evidence that no man could do it.

Really, your argument is incredibly silly.

I suspect many initial investors were virtue-signalling their support of a 'girlboss'--that they felt good about supporting a female leader and particularly a female leader leading a STEM startup.

Some investors (especially later investors) might have been sexist in a different way. Perhaps they thought Holmes's ideas must have been vetted with more scrutiny than a man's ideas would have been, so her idea was in fact more viable than it appeared.

And while both male and female con artists must have personal charisma to be successful, the bulk of investment dollars come from men, and part of Holmes's charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors, an appeal that no male con artist could have exercised on a male investor.

"Might" and "perhaps" are not convincing arguments if you actually thought about it.

I did think about it. That you are not persuaded it is proof is not the same thing as saying it is not evidence or that there is no evidence.

The notion that
male con artists cannot have sex appeal to male investors is so incredibly silly,

That is not what I said. In fact, I went out of my way to disabuse you of that furphy. But you obviously chose to ignore that. Indeed, this is like your other strawman. You chose to ignore the specific to strawman the statement into something more general. I did not say 'male investors'. I said 'heterosexual male investors'.

especially coming from an self-proclaimed gay man,

"Self-proclaimed". Okay luv.

Finally, the idea that part of Holmes' charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors is naive, because heterosexual males do not necessarily react to the sexual appeal of a woman.

Okay luv. No heterosexual male has ever 'reacted' to a sexually appealing, young woman.

The above is the level of strawman you applied to Trausti's conjecture, and now mine.

If that is all that you have, any further responses from you will not be worth reading.

Yes. Apparently the conjecture that an attractive teenaged white woman made a difference to heterosexual male investors (versus a man) is too fantastic an idea and not worth entertaining.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships those claims.

There was a specific claim made by Trausti, a claim you 'countered' by constructing a strawman version of Trausti's claim.

You are mistaken.

I have explained Trausti's claim. I have explained what evidence would contradict Trausti's claim. If you have evidence that contradicts Trausti's claim, I am eager to hear of it.

You are mistaken. Trausti's opinion has no evidence. There is no logical or rational reason to accept it without convincing evidence. It is up to Trausti and his supporters to either provide a convincing argument or evidence. You have failed to do so.

Evidence that both men and women are successful con artists is not evidence against Trausti's claim, because Trausti's claim is not 'only women can be successful con artists'.

You are mistaken. Trausti's unsupported opinion specifically says no man could have done what Ms, Holmes did. While he (and you) are free to spout any opinion you wish, it is unreasonable for anyone (including you) to expect to accept an opinion that is unsupported by evidence or reason.

Non. Trausti made a specific claim. You generalised the claim into a strawman. I corrected you multiple times.

No man could have done what Holmes did, and the evidence is that no man ever built up a multi-billion dollar biotech company using such an obviously fraudulent idea. I can speculate on a number of reasons why a man could not do it but a woman could (and did).

I suspect many initial investors were virtue-signalling their support of a 'girlboss'--that they felt good about supporting a female leader and particularly a female leader leading a STEM startup.

Some investors (especially later investors) might have been sexist in a different way. Perhaps they thought Holmes's ideas must have been vetted with more scrutiny than a man's ideas would have been, so her idea was in fact more viable than it appeared.

And while both male and female con artists must have personal charisma to be successful, the bulk of investment dollars come from men, and part of Holmes's charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors, an appeal that no male con artist could have exercised on a male investor.

<cough> Madoff <cough cough>

 

[Toni]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

Perhaps Trausti is wrong. Do you know of a man who peddled such an obviously fraudulent biotech idea into a multi billion dollar company?

Balwani. Holmes didn't act alone. Alone, she was highly unlikely to have succeeded.

Non. Balwani did not peddle his own biotech company on an obviously fraudulent idea.

Also: I do not believe that at 19, Holmes knew her idea was a fraud.

I did not say she did. I said her idea was obviously fraudulent. You said yourself you would not have believed it for a moment.

I think she 'thought' it was an innovative idea but that was based on her absolute lack of knowledge or comprehension about testing for the diseases she wanted to test for. Really, she just wanted to riff off of other microarrays that look for other things than evidence of infection.

Of course the real question is whether a 19 year old male would have been able to sell his idea to a bunch of greedy rich people. I think that probably they could have done so, under the right tutelage.

That's the point of contention.

I don't know of any 19 year old males (or indeed, males of any age) who sold any obviously fraudulent biotech ideas into a 4.5 billion dollar company. Do you?

I had a few advantages over Holmes: I’m an adult and one who specifically has some background in microbiology, and biochemistry and in medical testing of biological samples. And I was not being used by a much older mentor.

What is the difference between an untrue statement and a lie? Intent. I might claim ( insert any statement) because I believe it to be true and it remains an untrue statement but not a lie. I was simply wrong. If I assert something I know to be false is true, that would be a lie. I don’t believe that Holmes intended to defraud anyone. I think she believed her idea would work. I am certain she lacked sufficient background to see the flaws and limitations in her idea. Her investors certainly did, perhaps blinded by the $ in their eyes.

At some point, she realized she could not actually achieve her goals. At the point at which she began to falsify data, she became a fraud. I think she was very young, immature, under a tremendous amount of pressure, at least part of which was due to her relationship with Balwani.

Steve Jobs was only a little older than Holmes when he, along with his partner, founded Apple Computers. There are some distinct differences: Jobs didn’t invent the pc, his business partner did. Wozniak was only a few years older than Jobs and there was no romantic/sexual relationship between them. Oh, and Wozniak really could build computers.

Obviously, there was an attempt ( and a fairly successful one) to present Holmes as the next Steve Jobs.

Certainly there are many examples of fraud, including medical fraud.

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear from your

Anybody can go back and read what Trausti wrote and what you strawmanned.

That is not possible, since I did not strawman anyone.

No man could have done what Holmes did, and the evidence is that no man ever built up a multi-billion dollar biotech company using such an obviously fraudulent idea. I can speculate on a number of reasons why a man could not do it but a woman could (and did).

That reasoning is fallacious. Using that reasoning, no woman could walk on the moon because no woman has walked on the moon.\

The reasoning is not fallacious. The fact that no man has done what Holmes did, combined with reasons why no man could do it, is evidence that no man could do it.

Doubling down on illogic is not a convincing argument.

Really, your argument is incredibly silly.

I suspect many initial investors were virtue-signalling their support of a 'girlboss'--that they felt good about supporting a female leader and particularly a female leader leading a STEM startup.

Some investors (especially later investors) might have been sexist in a different way. Perhaps they thought Holmes's ideas must have been vetted with more scrutiny than a man's ideas would have been, so her idea was in fact more viable than it appeared.

And while both male and female con artists must have personal charisma to be successful, the bulk of investment dollars come from men, and part of Holmes's charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors, an appeal that no male con artist could have exercised on a male investor.

"Might" and "perhaps" are not convincing arguments if you actually thought about it.

I did think about it. That you are not persuaded it is proof is not the same thing as saying it is not evidence or that there is no evidence.

I did not say it was not evidence or not proof. I said it was not convincing.

More importantly, if you had actually thought about it, you'd realize that basing an argument on "might" and "perhaps" is also an argument with "might not" and "perhaps not" - both of which provide doubt as to the validity of the "could not" opinion.

The notion that
male con artists cannot have sex appeal to male investors is so incredibly silly,

That is not what I said. In fact, I went out of my way to disabuse you of that furphy. But you obviously chose to ignore that. Indeed, this is like your other strawman. You chose to ignore the specific to strawman the statement into something more general. I did not say 'male investors'. I said 'heterosexual male investors'.

It is abundantly clear you have no clue what a straw man is. You wrote "an appeal that no male con artist could have exercised on a male investor. "

Finally, the idea that part of Holmes' charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors is naive, because heterosexual males do not necessarily react to the sexual appeal of a woman.

Okay luv. No heterosexual male has ever 'reacted' to a sexually appealing, young woman.

Anyone familiar with the English language and reading comprehension will spout that as a straw man.

The above is the level of strawman you applied to Trausti's conjecture, and now mine.

If that is all that you have, any further responses from you will not be worth reading.

Yes. Apparently the conjecture that an attractive teenaged white woman made a difference to heterosexual male investors (versus a man) is too fantastic an idea and not worth entertaining.

Wow, you really are incapable of actually addressing the content of a post.

The conjecture that an attractive teenaged white woman made a difference to heterosexual male investors is not relevant to the opinion that no man could have accomplished what Ms. Holmes did.

 

[Metaphor]

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my response. There is no evidence to support his conjectures.

I explained the evidence in the paragraph directly following, but you snipped it.

Apparently you don’t understand what relevant evidence is. The fact that Ms Holmes was successful con artist is not evidence her success is due to her sex.

I have explained already how that is not a claim that Trausti made.

The claim that Trausti made is not 'Holmes was a successful con artist because she was a woman', but 'Holmes' sex was a necessary ingredient in successfully conning investors in the tech space, and no man could hope to peddle such an obviously fraudulent idea into a multi-billion dollar company'.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence to support the casual relationships those claims.

There was a specific claim made by Trausti, a claim you 'countered' by constructing a strawman version of Trausti's claim.

You are mistaken.

I have explained Trausti's claim. I have explained what evidence would contradict Trausti's claim. If you have evidence that contradicts Trausti's claim, I am eager to hear of it.

You are mistaken. Trausti's opinion has no evidence. There is no logical or rational reason to accept it without convincing evidence. It is up to Trausti and his supporters to either provide a convincing argument or evidence. You have failed to do so.

Evidence that both men and women are successful con artists is not evidence against Trausti's claim, because Trausti's claim is not 'only women can be successful con artists'.

You are mistaken. Trausti's unsupported opinion specifically says no man could have done what Ms, Holmes did. While he (and you) are free to spout any opinion you wish, it is unreasonable for anyone (including you) to expect to accept an opinion that is unsupported by evidence or reason.

Non. Trausti made a specific claim. You generalised the claim into a strawman. I corrected you multiple times.

No man could have done what Holmes did, and the evidence is that no man ever built up a multi-billion dollar biotech company using such an obviously fraudulent idea. I can speculate on a number of reasons why a man could not do it but a woman could (and did).

I suspect many initial investors were virtue-signalling their support of a 'girlboss'--that they felt good about supporting a female leader and particularly a female leader leading a STEM startup.

Some investors (especially later investors) might have been sexist in a different way. Perhaps they thought Holmes's ideas must have been vetted with more scrutiny than a man's ideas would have been, so her idea was in fact more viable than it appeared.

And while both male and female con artists must have personal charisma to be successful, the bulk of investment dollars come from men, and part of Holmes's charisma would have included her sexual appeal to heterosexual male investors, an appeal that no male con artist could have exercised on a male investor.

<cough> Madoff <cough cough>

Are you suggesting Madoff was sexually appealing to heterosexual male investors?

Madoff ran a wealth management fund. A wealth management fund is not an obviously fraudulent biotech scam.

 

[Metaphor]

I had a few advantages over Holmes: I’m an adult and one who specifically has some background in microbiology, and biochemistry and in medical testing of biological samples. And I was not being used by a much older mentor.

What is the difference between an untrue statement and a lie? Intent. I might claim ( insert any statement) because I believe it to be true and it remains an untrue statement but not a lie. I was simply wrong. If I assert something I know to be false is true, that would be a lie. I don’t believe that Holmes intended to defraud anyone. I think she believed her idea would work. I am certain she lacked sufficient background to see the flaws and limitations in her idea. Her investors certainly did, perhaps blinded by the $ in their eyes.

At some point, she realized she could not actually achieve her goals. At the point at which she began to falsify data, she became a fraud. I think she was very young, immature, under a tremendous amount of pressure, at least part of which was due to her relationship with Balwani.

I think I can see the problem--I called the Theranos tech 'obviously fraudulent'. Perhaps I should say 'obviously a scientifically impossible pipe dream'. The point I am defending here is not that Holmes was a fraud from the start (though I believe she was), but that the interaction of her charisma, her sex and sex appeal, and the biotech startup space allowed her to sell that impossible pipe dream in a way that no man could have.

 

[TomC]

you suggesting Madoff was sexually appealing to heterosexual male investors?

No!
How hard is this?
Madoff was an ugly old dude who ran a great scam without benefit of being a hot Californian teen girl.

Being as hot as Holmes was a bit of an advantage. But the premise that her scam was unique because she's hot is ridiculous. Hot chicks run all kinds of scams, but usually to achieve this level requires an older mentor.
Someone like Balwani.
Tom