 |
| Blood Drop Emoji by Apple |
In 2003, a woman named Elizabeth Holmes dropped out of Stanford University to start a company called Theranos, a company claiming to have created revolutionary technology for blood testing. They claimed to have technology that could analyze blood using blood from only a pinprick on a finger. Eventually, Theranos rose to be estimated at a value of approximately 9 billion dollars, without ever having a working and accurate product. The company eventually failed, with Holmes being accused of fraud.
According to Harry Frankfurt, there is a difference between lying and bullshit; essentially, the liar’s intentions are to lead the listener away from reality. Their goal is to trick the listener. As for the bullshitter, they simply do not care about the truth. Bullshit could be true or false; the difference between the liar and the bullshitter is that the bullshitter could care less what the truth actually is.
 |
| Elizabeth Holmes, photo by Greg Allen/Invision/AP |
Was Elizabeth Holmes a bullshitter or a liar? Did she care about the truth or was she trying to perpetuate a false idea to lead those who listened to her down a path of false reality? Holmes started the company before dropping out of Stanford University. She managed to raise $700 million from early investors without having working technology. She took investors' money on the condition that she wouldn't have to show how Theranos's technology actually worked. Holmes was seemingly obsessed with Steve Jobs; she dressed like Jobs, decorated her office like Jobs, and kept the company shrouded in secret much like Jobs. She even lowered her voice for the media to fit into a predominantly male populated tech industry.
To say that Holmes was simply a bullshitter, I believe, would be false. It seems that Theranos really was all an elaborate hoax, with Holmes playing the role of a tech entrepreneur perfectly. Perhaps, however, Holmes did bullshit; maybe she was convinced that her company could produce the product that they claimed, and they simply needed more time to accomplish it. Perhaps she wasn’t concerned with the truth because she was convinced that her product would be a true concept. However, the evidence does show that Holmes was an elaborate liar that set out to trick investors to give her company money.
I find the whole Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes situation so interesting. I agree with you in that Holmes is a liar. She knew what the truth was (her company was a fraud) and deliberatly tried to hide it. But there's a part of me that thinks Holmes sincerely thought one day her technology would miraculously work. Why else would she allow documentary crews to follow her around everyday? As for your post, I do think you could tie in the readings a bit more. There was that small paragraph about Frankfurt's writing, but I think incorporating it more throughout your blog would better show your knowledge of his ideas. Great job otherwise, though! I really like your example of Holmes and Theranos.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting, well-organized argumentative post! It might be better if you bring up Frankhurt's point earlier and that can make more sense since you bring up your point at the beginning and readers can see why you tell this story. I love the choice of story since it's so real that can be really reflective and strong enough to be supportive to your argument. In my opinion, the way we differentiate between bushitter and liar is if she cares about the truth, right? But we don't really know if she cares since this is too subjective and only she knows how she think about that. On the surface, we see she played a great show and make it convincing. Looking for more opinions from you!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting point and a really cool example where
ReplyDeletethere can be a case made between her being a liar or a bullshiter. You do a good job explaining the situation at a high level as well as summarizing one of Frankfurt’s points. I think your argument would be made a little stronger if you could work in a quote, or another point from Frankfurt into your blog post. Making it more fluid between evidence and the readings would make a good post even better. I also highly recommend you watch the HBO documentary about her. It may make change your mind between calling her a bullshiter/liar and they do a great job with a lot of the smaller details the articles may miss.