6 ms·

Did you ever read about the obsessive determination with which Harry Markopolos worked to expose Bernie Madoff? He had a visceral obsession with Madoff, workin

Did you ever read about the obsessive determination with which Harry Markopolos worked to expose Bernie Madoff? He had a visceral obsession with Madoff, working for almost a decade to expose Madoff's scam. John Carreyrou likewise had a longterm fixation on exposing the Theranos scam. These weren't mere "disputes" over technicalities- they were all-consuming endeavors that became core to the identifies of the whistleblowers. They were most definitely "haters".

johnwheeler 7y ago
That’s crazy. They weren’t haters. In both cases there were career incentives that drove each to pursuing their targets. At no point did either say to themselves, I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me? They thought, I’m going to bust this crooks ass because this is a true injustice that should be exposed, and I’m going to be the one who benefits from doing it. There’s a big difference between cheating and succeeding (that’s what I think haters don’t want to believe), and in some cases like the two you mention, it wasn’t just perceptual. There was hard evidence of fraud.
- danso 7y ago
  What is your standard for determining that someone else is actually a "hater"? Because people like Carreyrou were most definitely considered "haters" by Holmes' supporters – Tim Draper in particular called Carreyrou "a hyena" [0]. Your reasoning that Carreyrou is not a hater because he had "career incentives" that drove him is not a sound argument. A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain. If you seek to destroy something by violating your own principles (e.g. journalistic truth), then you can be thought of as "hating"/"despising" that something, whether or not you personally gain from its destruction. [0] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/bullied-into-submission-tim-draper-still-loves-elizabeth-holmes-with-the-fire-of-one-thousand-suns https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/bullied-into-submiss...
  - johnwheeler 7y ago
    > A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain. That is exactly the thrust of PGs essay. Neither of those people violated their own principles. Holmes and Madoff are frauds. Full stop. Tim Draper did consider Carreyou a hater. Draper was proven wrong the instant Carreyou was vindicated. Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me” like Draper might have thought. He wanted her to fail, if anything, because she deserved to. Truly deserved to.
    - danso 7y ago
      Holmes and Madoff were frauds after sufficient evidence (including the consequences of their business practices) were made public and heavily scrutinized. That said, I agree PG's essay isn't intended to be about people like Carreyrou, or the SEC investigators into Madoff, etc – I am confused about which real-life people of consequence he's actually thinking of, because it's strange to write an essay about such an abstract strawman. But referring back to u/rjdagost's top comment, about totally disagreeing with the footnote that begins with "There are of course some people who are genuine frauds", and that PG's reasoning is unsound because Enron, Theranos, Madoff, etc. "were ALL widely celebrated by neutral third parties before being exposed as frauds"...people like Carreyrou were not seen as "neutral third parties". Again, with respect to Carreyrou, Draper and allies accused him of chasing a Pulitzer, i.e. advancing his career. It's only through the passage of time and accumulation of evidence that people like Carreyrou are vindicated as being "neutral" or "objective". I guess this is a long way of saying that PG's essay feels like drawn out exercise of begging the question.
      - johnwheeler 7y ago
        Sure maybe Carreyou wasn’t advancing his career. I should have said that was one possibility. It would be a noble pursuit because he did the world good.
      - philwelch 7y ago
        > That said, I agree PG's essay isn't intended to be about people like Carreyrou, or the SEC investigators into Madoff, etc – I am confused about which real-life people of consequence he's actually thinking of, because it's strange to write an essay about such an abstract strawman. The whole point of his essay is that haters are inconsequential and can safely be ignored. If you don't think these are real people who exist, spend more time on social media and they'll inevitably appear. I think his essay is explicitly addressed less to those of us here in the peanut gallery and more to the people who accumulate haters.

johnwheeler 7y ago

That’s crazy. They weren’t haters. In both cases there were career incentives that drove each to pursuing their targets. At no point did either say to themselves, I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me? They thought, I’m going to bust this crooks ass because this is a true injustice that should be exposed, and I’m going to be the one who benefits from doing it. There’s a big difference between cheating and succeeding (that’s what I think haters don’t want to believe), and in some cases like the two you mention, it wasn’t just perceptual. There was hard evidence of fraud.

danso 7y ago
What is your standard for determining that someone else is actually a "hater"? Because people like Carreyrou were most definitely considered "haters" by Holmes' supporters – Tim Draper in particular called Carreyrou "a hyena" [0]. Your reasoning that Carreyrou is not a hater because he had "career incentives" that drove him is not a sound argument. A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain. If you seek to destroy something by violating your own principles (e.g. journalistic truth), then you can be thought of as "hating"/"despising" that something, whether or not you personally gain from its destruction. [0] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/bullied-into-submission-tim-draper-still-loves-elizabeth-holmes-with-the-fire-of-one-thousand-suns https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/bullied-into-submiss...
- johnwheeler 7y ago
  > A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain. That is exactly the thrust of PGs essay. Neither of those people violated their own principles. Holmes and Madoff are frauds. Full stop. Tim Draper did consider Carreyou a hater. Draper was proven wrong the instant Carreyou was vindicated. Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me” like Draper might have thought. He wanted her to fail, if anything, because she deserved to. Truly deserved to.
  - danso 7y ago
    Holmes and Madoff were frauds after sufficient evidence (including the consequences of their business practices) were made public and heavily scrutinized. That said, I agree PG's essay isn't intended to be about people like Carreyrou, or the SEC investigators into Madoff, etc – I am confused about which real-life people of consequence he's actually thinking of, because it's strange to write an essay about such an abstract strawman. But referring back to u/rjdagost's top comment, about totally disagreeing with the footnote that begins with "There are of course some people who are genuine frauds", and that PG's reasoning is unsound because Enron, Theranos, Madoff, etc. "were ALL widely celebrated by neutral third parties before being exposed as frauds"...people like Carreyrou were not seen as "neutral third parties". Again, with respect to Carreyrou, Draper and allies accused him of chasing a Pulitzer, i.e. advancing his career. It's only through the passage of time and accumulation of evidence that people like Carreyrou are vindicated as being "neutral" or "objective". I guess this is a long way of saying that PG's essay feels like drawn out exercise of begging the question.
    - johnwheeler 7y ago
      Sure maybe Carreyou wasn’t advancing his career. I should have said that was one possibility. It would be a noble pursuit because he did the world good.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      > That said, I agree PG's essay isn't intended to be about people like Carreyrou, or the SEC investigators into Madoff, etc – I am confused about which real-life people of consequence he's actually thinking of, because it's strange to write an essay about such an abstract strawman. The whole point of his essay is that haters are inconsequential and can safely be ignored. If you don't think these are real people who exist, spend more time on social media and they'll inevitably appear. I think his essay is explicitly addressed less to those of us here in the peanut gallery and more to the people who accumulate haters.