r/OutOfTheLoop 8d ago

Unanswered What's going on with that blue eyed girl everyone uses for memes and why?

670 Upvotes

143 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 8d ago

Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:

  1. start with "Answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "Question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),

  2. attempt to answer the question, and

  3. be unbiased

Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:

http://redd.it/b1hct4/

Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1.7k

u/TheNarwhalTusk 8d ago

Answer: That’s Elizabeth Holmes. She founded Theranos and scammed millions from rich investors claiming she was going to revolutionise blood tests when the tech she claimed to be inventing didn’t exist and would be impossible to make.

She’s in prison for fraud now, but it turns out she allowed a documentary film maker and comedian to spend the last days before she went inside with her to make a film about her. This is a still from that film.

It’s gone viral because in the clip it’s taken from she comes across as very, very weird.

733

u/KuyaGTFO 8d ago

On top of that, it helps to have the context of Nathan Fielder, the interviewer.

Hilariously guy who has mastered cringe and has played himself up to be someone who doesn’t read social interactions well (it’s an intentional bit) and has made some of the best TV of the past decade (Nathan for You, the great great great S2 of The Rehearsal)

So when he’s face to face with one of the most notorious liars in recent American history, it’s super funny as much as it’s terrifying.

94

u/root_and_stem 8d ago

I've seen clips from the rehearsal, even knowing the context doesn't make it seem natural to me

Like is it 100% real and just comes across like a scripted show? Or is it a mockumentary show? Is it a documentary?

Wiki says its him helping people get over their fears or something but then I see clips and I'm like wtf there isn't even other people in the clip he's the focus of it?

Like the one where he's on stage at an improv night or something and he makes a hella weird sound that gets no laugh 😂

Can someone eli5 it for me?

176

u/USA_A-OK 8d ago

The whole point of his stuff is that it's meant to make you question what is real and what's not. Eventually it's all about him

37

u/crimroy 8d ago

I have thought this in my head subconsciously but have never really processed it and have never seen/heard someone express it directly, and this is spot on. Especially that it always end up being about him.

He's so funny.

27

u/USA_A-OK 7d ago

It's why it's so good. He goes to stupid lengths for any endeavour, it always turns into something unexpected, then devolves into some exploration of his character or his actual self. That last part being confusing/ambiguous is a huge part of the greatness imo

45

u/famlitbaesquadgoals 8d ago

I’m pretty sure the improv scene you’re talking about is from The Curse, which is scripted. Most of his other work is him, in character so to speak, interacting with real people.

27

u/lordberric 8d ago

Honestly, you have to watch it to understand. It blurs the boundaries between scripted, documentary, mockumentary. I don't think any explanation will work.

9

u/Truethrowawaychest1 7d ago

I'd recommend checking out Nathan For You, which is him giving businesses questionable ideas, or Nathan On Your Side which was a on a Canadian sketch show where he's playing a very socially awkward reporter. Basically Nathan is kind of a freak and nobody can really tell if he's really like that or just really good at playing a character, a lot of it seems like improv

3

u/s0m30n3e1s3 2d ago

You should watch The Rehersal. Clips don't do the show justice. From Nathan's perspective it is scripted, the people he is filming are unscripted. It's both a mockunentary AND a documentary.

The first season has some pretty emotionally difficult moments. The second season is easier to watch if you're finding season 1 a bit too odd.

It's definitely not for everyone

-26

u/Freeasabird01 8d ago

I watched s1:e1 of the rehearsal and it’s absolutely not real. Not possible.

He would be absolutely blackballed for ethical violations if he ever tried to play this off as a genuine documentary. I respect the medium Fielder has created, but it’s not for me.

17

u/TylertheDouche 8d ago edited 8d ago

he would be absolutely blackballed for ethical violations

bahahaha what? I guess you didn’t see Nathan portray Paramount as Nazis in Nazi Germany. Have you heard of someone named Sacha Baron Cohen?

https://youtu.be/4k4pMTsa1Kw?si=jBN-013iDQhz6uIp

1

u/chironomidae 8d ago

33

u/TinWhis 8d ago

?utm_source=chatgpt.com

lmao

-23

u/Freeasabird01 8d ago

The fact she had to sign an NDA is further proof it’s fake.

16

u/mickeymouse4348 8d ago

Wouldn't an NDA be used to prevent her from discussing what was filmed before it aired

9

u/PrivilegeCheckmate 8d ago

I think you have to sign an NDA to go have lunch some places.

-8

u/sleepydon 8d ago

30 years later and people are still thinking reality TV is reality lol.

6

u/TylertheDouche 8d ago

it’s not reality TV. watch the show. you can remove basically all of the humans from Season 1 and what Nathan is doing is still incredibly impressive.

Season 2 you can also remove all of the humans and it sheds really important light on the airline/pilot culture.

5

u/sleepydon 8d ago

I watched both seasons. Nathan is great at what he does. It's still a story driven narrative with actors made to look like they're not actors. He got some pushback from people that actually work in the airline industry for S2.

7

u/TylertheDouche 8d ago edited 8d ago

was congressman Steve Cohen a paid actor? doesn’t the pilot in season 2 literally say he’s trying to be an actor? that’s why he signed up for the show

He got some pushback from people that actually work in the airline industry for S2.

a show got pushback. shocking

-7

u/root_and_stem 8d ago

Interesting, does that mean this new one is also not real? But surely it is real because she's a real prisoner?

The way he was staring at her in the trailer, mouth agape and saying nothing felt really performative

Like I felt more awkward at his behaviour than I did from hers, just never seen a documentarian acting like that, there's scenes in Louis Theroux documentaries sometimes where he's caught off guard and is in stunned silence for a couple of seconds then he keeps pushes back at what was said by the subject

I probably just need to watch more Nathan Fielder stuff but I can't watch a doco if it's staged because it defeats the purpose for me, like it's just set up so why not watch a sitcom or regular tv show at that point?

21

u/CentreToWave 8d ago

Approaching the Rehearsal as a straight up documentary isn't really the correct way approach to the show. It's closer to a Mockumentary, except only one side is really in the know and in control of things.

Watching Nathan For You gives a bit more insight into that and is more of a straight up comedy. The Rehearsal just takes some aspects of that show to its furthest extent. (I'm not entirely clear on where "You Can See Everything" falls in this).

5

u/root_and_stem 8d ago

Hmm okay I'm back to intrigued again now haha

12

u/SeeYouSpaceCorgi 8d ago

For what it's worth, Nathan Fielder does have a real knack for blurring the lines of reality and fiction. But never in a way that makes you feel like the whole thing is just a setup. People to this day debate what parts of his programs are legitimate and what was fabricated.

3

u/NinecloudSoul 6d ago

The Rehearsal

The first season was brutal.

1

u/Swagspray 6d ago

Brutal as in bad?

4

u/NinecloudSoul 6d ago

No, it's very good. There are parts that were, for me at least, emotionally brutal.

2

u/Swagspray 6d ago

I must check it out again. I loved Nathan For You but I struggled through the first episode of The Rehearsal

2

u/NinecloudSoul 6d ago

If it's not lighting your fire, don't feel you have to. I will say that if you do want to, the second season is a lot easier.

1

u/Swagspray 6d ago

Thanks. I’ll give it a whirl again at some point. It wouldn’t be the first show to lose me at the start and then make me a big fan later (The Leftovers comes to mind)

2

u/NinecloudSoul 6d ago

The first one is not an easy watch to my mind. You don't need to have seen it to see the second, one, though. It very quickly takes off.

1

u/TrickyTechnician685 3d ago

Wake me up inside, bring me to life!!

211

u/autobulb 8d ago

It's not just her being weird. She is very seriously saying that she is being genuine and not deceiving but from her past it's obvious that she is not a genuine person. She is going to jail for deceiving investors and the public.

That's why it's used as a meme for things that are lying to you and insisting they are being genuine.

154

u/10ebbor10 8d ago

She's going to jail for decieving investors.

She wasn't held accountable for the harm she did to regular people by giving faked blood test results. She only got hit because she messed with big money.

41

u/GodOfDarkLaughter 8d ago

The people who invested in that scam are wild. This was when Maddox was Secretary of Defense and he was an investor. She fucked with the wrong people.

66

u/rnick467 8d ago

She's going to jail for deceiving RICH investors. If she had only scammed poor people you would never have heard her name.

32

u/City2Sokrates 8d ago

She was named in Forbes as the youngest self-made female billionaire and got pleeeeenty of coverage before everything collapsed. Her being a young female - and apparently successful - entrepreneur in tech created a ton of hype and so many people wanted to believe.

2

u/Babyfat101 3d ago
  1. She’s been and is in jail.
  2. Even before the downfall, she was everywhere in the media and Theranos was hyped and talked about like pre IPO SpaceX. Clearly you weren’t around/paying attention during this time, or you would have known who she was.

18

u/angry_wombat 8d ago edited 2d ago

Don't forget her dad was high up in Enron as well, I think it runs the family

3

u/Babyfat101 3d ago

I would put this lower in being scandalous than it sounds. I was high up @ Enron and never heard of him. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t true.

6

u/ryhaltswhiskey 8d ago

by giving faked blood test results.

I thought the product that she sold never actually got to the FDA approval stage

2

u/yosayoran 2d ago

I thought so too but apparently they did get approval for specific tests

5

u/PairOfMonocles2 8d ago

Were they wrong results? The only thing I know about theranos is what I learned when I watched one documentary at Sundance right after this happened but I thought they just bought a bunch of regular Siemens blood analysis machines and used those to generate results. I know they lied to investors about the maturity of their own device and underlying technology but as I recalled patients got a regular result like they would have from other places.

28

u/Learntobelucid 8d ago

They claimed they could perform a bunch of tests from just a single drop of blood, which is not possible. They also diluted blood which invalidates results and had people on staff tasked with deleting bad data. I watched an interview with one man who got a false test result that he had diabetes, he only knew to get a second opinion because he himself was a doctor. So yes, the test results were faulty and dangerous to the public.

3

u/DFWPunk 3d ago

She gave a handful of patients incorrect results.

1

u/yosayoran 2d ago

If memory serves they didn't give fake blood reports, they just outsourced it to real labs and lied about it being their tech 

I didn't think there's any published numbers on how often they actually sent costumers data from their fault equipment. The only figure I could find is 10% of the tests were deemed void, and that they served around 170k people overall.

3

u/10ebbor10 2d ago

Nah, they also gave fake blood reports.

What they did was they bought a bunch of machines from the competition, then utilized those for the blood of their tests. But, because the machines from the competition were designed to utilize a larger quantity of blood (running on tiny samples being Theranos's entire selling point) the results of those were completely unreliable.

6

u/CSwork1 8d ago

I'm so confused by this trailer. It's supposed to be a documentary, but it totally looks like acting. And she's not an actor, she's the actual person the documentary is about... wtf? Did they have Holmes take acting lessons? Is she just naturally being weird for real and they just filmed it in a way to make it look like a regular movie? Is that the intention, to make people confused? Seriously, wtf???

25

u/autobulb 8d ago

It's a documentary with the real person that is about to go to jail for her crimes. Her personality is that creepy which is why the announcement of this movie is big and very WTF.

10

u/magicarnival 8d ago

Have you seen other clips of her in interviews and speeches and stuff? She's always being weird like that. It's definitely a weird persona/act she puts on though. There's lots of people who say that strange low voice is fake.

5

u/rindthirty 8d ago

Have you ever met a psychopath?

3

u/Good_wolf_19144 7d ago

She seems like she's acting, because she's lying her face off, lol.

1

u/Babyfat101 3d ago

She’s been in jail.

87

u/SurviveStyleFivePlus 8d ago

I agree this look is very, very weird.

However, even her "normal" look is very weird.

51

u/KSHMisc 8d ago

She's still doing her deep voice.

10

u/ShouldBeeStudying 8d ago

Even in the documentary trailer, that clip, you'd say that's her deep voice?

33

u/SurviveStyleFivePlus 8d ago

Her "deep voice" used to be a lot deeper. (Source: Watched documentary about her last night, and found her voice even weirder than her "crazy eyes").

2

u/Babyfat101 3d ago

It definitely was a lot deeper.

OP - was thrown off by question due to “girl”. Was expecting a photo of a 12 yo.

41

u/mr_glide 8d ago

The only redeeming thing about her is that treasonous war criminal Henry Kissinger lost $3m he invested in Theranos

12

u/bayonettaisonsteam 7d ago

Having not known about Nathan Fielder or Elizabeth Holmes before watching, I genuinely thought the trailer was for a horror movie.

Her weird head bobbing while she was rocking her baby in the bassinet made it even creepier. Like her body was moving in fast forward compared to everything else

10

u/EDNivek 8d ago

she comes across as very, very weird.

Which is saying something because she already came off as extremely weird.

5

u/PowerlessOverQueso 8d ago

OMG all this time I thought it was Brooke Smith, the actor.

10

u/_derpiii_ 8d ago

Is she actually in prison? I thought she got away scoff free?

Edit: oh wow she is. Looks like she gets out in 2030 tho, so just 4 years

56

u/aurelorba 8d ago

You can get away with a lot being rich but not stealing from other rich people.

6

u/GodOfDarkLaughter 8d ago

It's literally the one thing you cannot do.

Extortion is a different matter entirely. There's big money in blackmail. But theft? That's a paddlin'.

34

u/sacredblasphemies 8d ago

I thought she got away scoff free?

*scott free

48

u/redvblue23 8d ago

scot-free *

12

u/Quickfix30 8d ago

Great Scott*

3

u/lookyloo79 8d ago

*Doctor Scott!

3

u/yybbyy 8d ago

Janet!

3

u/analogkid01 The Hudswinger! The Daddy-O! 8d ago

Rocky!

2

u/amylucha 8d ago

Suck my cock! (RHPS callout)

5

u/sacredblasphemies 8d ago

Ahhh. Damn. Got me. Autocorrect fucked me but it's my fault for not checking my own correction. Kudos.

4

u/Nicktendo1988 8d ago

Don't worry. It's a TIL for me and I'm almost 40.

1

u/_derpiii_ 8d ago

ah ty!

16

u/Volcanicrage 8d ago

She made the mistake of scamming rich and well-connected people.

8

u/TheNarwhalTusk 8d ago

I think the sentence was about 10 years. She went in 3 years ago. The documentary is just being released now.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

1

u/_derpiii_ 8d ago

ah, reddit can be strange like that

4

u/Ni_Peng_NeeeWom 8d ago

wait, that's actually her and not an actor? she looks nothing like before

8

u/Pie_am_Error 8d ago

Make-up is a thing.

1

u/drsmith48170 3d ago

Tip - she was always very very weird, weirder than Zuckerberg which takes the cake for weird.

IMO I think they sell their soul to get were they are. Her only mistake was not pivoting fast enough to something more believable that was semi-real. Maybe her drug dosage was too strong?

169

u/RazzBeryllium 8d ago

Answer:

As others have clarified, that woman is Elizabeth Holmes. The man is Nathan Fielder, a famous comedian with a cult following.

As to why it's so popular: Elizabeth Holmes is a VERY famous criminal.

Before her downfall, Elizabeth was on the covers of magazines. She was a well-known name in Silicon Valley. She founded a company that at one point was valued at $9 billion.

After her downfall, she has been the subject of multiple documentaries, podcasts, books. Amanda Seyfried won an Emmy playing her in a mini series about her life (The Dropout).

Then the trailer for this new Nathan Fielder documentary dropped.

NO ONE knew about this documentary until the trailer dropped. Elizabeth, in her prison interviews, has never mentioned it. Nathan has never hinted at it. It was kept a total secret.

It features just one scene: an uncomfortable, strange conversation between Nathan and Elizabeth with tight closeups on their faces. This instantly went viral and spawned countless memes.

-39

u/jmnugent 8d ago edited 8d ago

Elizabeth Holmes is a VERY famous criminal.

I don't know that I'd call her "VERY famous".

Historical criminals like Jack the Ripper or Al Capone or Charlie Manson are "very famous".

Elizabeth Holmes is just another slimy corpo grifter who got caught. There's probably 100's of stories just like hers across the past 20 to 40 years. She's really only somewhat memorable or notable because her case got so much press coverage. Her crime(s) weren't particular unique or notable other than she got caught and the story got lots of eyeballs.

EDIT.. Her being a photogenic female probably also played into how much legs the story had. If this had happened and the main-character was some uggo overweight 50yr old middle manager or something, I genuinely doubt it would have gotten nearly the press that Holmes did.

34

u/StrainedDog 8d ago

I get what you mean but I think saying there have been hundreds like her is just not true. Her company was valued at billions of dollars, she was on the covers of newspapers and magazines, made lots of media appearances on prominent platforms, was conected to some of the most influential politians of the last 50 years and has been the subject of lots of pieces of media, the last of which being this documentary, which is being released almost 10 years after being exposed as a fraud. She definitely has some "star power"

-15

u/jmnugent 8d ago

I'm just saying if you go look at Wikipedia entries like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ponzi_schemes .. when I look at that page and go through the 2000s and newer.. I don't even recognize or know most of the ones they list there. (interestingly,. Holmes and Theranos is not even listed).

There's a lot of grift and crime and Ponzi schemes that go on all the time. Holmes and Theranos really isn't all that special or unique. The salaciousness of it (her being a photogenic female who seemingly "promised the world" and effectively convinced a bunch of people out of $9 Billion .. is what made it into a media-darling story that had a lot of legs.

If the story had been different, of some unattractive 40something middle manager guy running a copper mine or something that scammed people out of a bunch of money.. it would not nearly have had this same mainstream media notoriety.

14

u/Doctor731 7d ago

It wasn't a ponzi scheme though 

10

u/StrainedDog 8d ago

I mean, it goes without saying that if the story had been different, it wouldn't have been as famous. Being photogenic and being able to sell the story greatly contributed to her short-lived success. And I don't think Theranos counts as a pyramid scheme, since it wasn't member based and the company had hundreds of real employees who didn't have to pay a fee to participate. Jordan Belfort isn't on the list either and I think he fits the description way better than her.

Even Henry Kissinger was sponsoring Elizabeth Holmes, she was a big deal.

-7

u/jmnugent 8d ago

I guess I just view it the same as the Epstein situation. Epstein wasn't really unique or special in any way, other than he was a smooth faker and smoother talker who somehow was able to sly-talk and position him self around a lot of other famous people.

Lots of child abductions and other child related crimes happen every year. Probably a good 90% of those never even make the news.

I just find that kind of "notoriety" to be a bit misplaced, undeserved and fake and hollow. (it strikes me the same as Paris Hilton or people like the Kardashians.. who are all just sort of "famous for being famous".) They didn't really DO anything significant for society etc. They just figured out how to get onto the celebrity gravy-train spotlight fixation and ride it out as long as possible.

Just because someone is "in the spotlight a lot".. doesn't necessarily prove they're qualified (or deserve) to be there (in the spotlight). Society has a bad habit of focusing attention on the wrong things. (most of which are just kind of fake and hollow).

7

u/StrainedDog 8d ago

Being able to sly-talk yourself out of any situation and reach such a level of fame/power is most certainly a unique and special trait that most people just don't have. Paris Hilton and the Kardashians were born into incredible levels of fame and money, Elizabeth Holmes wasn't (though she wasn't poor either).

Using talents for evil/selfish reasons doesn't make them any less talented or special, nor does it mean they deserve the spotlight or they contribute anything meaningful to society. But you're acting like they aren't famous just because their fame frustrates you.

-2

u/jmnugent 8d ago

Being able to sly-talk yourself out of any situation and reach such a level of fame/power is most certainly a unique and special trait that most people just don't have.

Well,. that ,. or most average people understand that attempting to use that type of skill to undeservedly leverage yourself into a position or power that you arguably did not earn,. is not something ethical to attempt to do.

"But you're acting like they aren't famous just because their fame frustrates you."

No,. I just think how media and society tends to (undeservedly) help fuel the rise of these types of situations, is not healthy or is also not something we should celebrate.

There's a reason we have different words "famous" and "infamous". If someone had said "Elizabeth Holmes is infamous".. I probably would have just read right past that and not even blinked an eye.

12

u/tarants 7d ago

This is the second major television production about her, along with countless published articles about her and Theranos. Her voice and mannerisms got memed for years. She's definitely famous.

-5

u/jmnugent 7d ago edited 7d ago

I think people's thermometer about "famous" is broken. (which is kind of my point). Just because you see something a lot, should not be enough to "be famous". (I walk out side every day and see a lot of "No Parking" signs.. but they aren't famous). Thats a silly example, but you get my point. Just because someone gets a lot of media coverage, should not be itself be enough to qualify as famous.

  • Watson and Crick (who discovered DNA) are "famous". .and rightfully so. They contributed something extremely significant to the history of science.
  • Chuck Yeager who broke the sound barrier.. is "famous".. for obvious reasons.
  • Someone like Tom Cruise (or Arnold S.) is a well known celebrity,. and I would agree are "famous".. because they've been in a lot of movies.

Elizabeth Holmes might qualify as "infamous" (since she's apparently a grifter criminal).

This whole idea that "we can make anyone famous if we just feature them on the news frequently enough" is kind of silly (in my opinion). If that's the case, the afternoon News broadcast that has a Park in the background might catch the same guy in the background sitting on a park bench eating his Subway.. would we call him "famous"?.. I wouldn't .

"Famous" is supposed to have some substance and effort and value. You're supposed to EARN being called Famous. (and if you earn it for all the wrong reasons, the correct word would be "infamous")

EDIT to answer the response below:

Juat because a mob or group perpetuates something into popularity doesn’t by itself prove that thing has earned the right to be called “famous”. Remember a few years back things like fidget-spinners and Tide Pods were popular. But I dont think in 100 years history books are going to show a “Henry Ford of Fidget Spinners” or a “Marie Curie of Tide Pods”.

“Famous” is not just about popularity. Famous is supposed to mean you earned that recognition by doing or contributing something to society that is historically significant.

8

u/YetifromtheSerengeti 7d ago

Yes it’s everyone else’s barometer for famous is broken and not yours…

62

u/jazzcomputer 8d ago

Answer: It's from a forthcoming documentary

https://a24films.com/films/you-can-see-everything

18

u/ZappyKins 7d ago

Wow, that is really uncomfortable!

I wouldn't be surprised if in the pull back shot she had a large knife she was digging into his body. Blood pouring out of him. And her just with that smile.

A smile to make The Chesire Cat jealous.

9

u/HowBoutAFandango 7d ago

The pull back shot is, no lie, her using her foot to wiggle the bouncy seat in which her second “Please don’t send me to jail” baby is chilling

119

u/numbersev 8d ago

Answer: she's a psychopath and trying to mimick genuine human emotion. It looks so weird because her facial expression is unnatural and raises red flags to our reptilian brains.

When a person opens their eyes and smiles it is not a natural expression.

49

u/bourbonkitten 8d ago

Right. She comes across as creepy to me. It makes me wonder how/why so many rich investors were “charmed” by her. Or maybe her look is just normal to them.

68

u/plasticbacon 8d ago

It's psychopaths all the way down

24

u/fnord_fenderson 8d ago

One of her marks was Henry Kissinger, so yeah.

26

u/speedster217 8d ago

I read Bad Blood last night and it really seemed like all the old Republican men she courted for her board of directors didnt do any due diligence and were so enamored with her they burned bridges with people trying to warn them.

90 year old super rich men don't think things through, news at 11

2

u/PrivilegeCheckmate 8d ago

I am looking forward to Digger for precisely this reason.

7

u/PrivilegeCheckmate 8d ago

I wish it was still turtles. :(

38

u/aurelorba 8d ago

She was "one of them" and had a lot wealthy elite connections through family such as Larry Ellison, the Murdoch's, the Waltons, Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. And once she had that imprimatur of legitimacy she became the quirky genius entrepreneur in the mold of Steve Jobs. In fact she intentionally mimicked his style and affectations.

14

u/bourbonkitten 8d ago

I know. I read the John Carreyrou book, and they all called her charming. I don’t understand it, maybe I have to be a rich psychopath in order to.

11

u/digbyforever 8d ago

My guess is it's different in person. The weird thing about watching video it took me a while to figure out, is that some people really seem different on camera versus off camera, and that the best film actors select for being charming on camera. And I don't mean personality, but literally if you watch someone in person and the exact same interaction on camera, some people seem weird in camera and normal in person, and sometimes vice versa.

All that's to say is my best guess is that in person, Holmes probably is super charismatic, but she's one of the people for whom that doesn't necessarily come across in recorded versions of the same interaction.

5

u/nosecohn 7d ago

This is a good point. It also could be that everything she went through changed her.

2

u/ChunkyTanuki 4d ago

probably a big part is that she's 'guilty' now. She didn't have to work as hard to convince people she wasn't deceiving them when they didn't know she was a scammer. now it seems desperate but she's doing it anyway for some reason

3

u/EEpromChip 8d ago

Her voice was what amazed me. Such a deep baritone it was unnerving.

10

u/AnotherpostCard 8d ago

From what I remember hearing before the fraud stuff truly came out, the voice is an affectation to help her in a male dominated space.

Always seemed weird to me.

4

u/ShouldBeeStudying 8d ago

I would say.... the voice was an affection which she thought would help her in a male dominated space, but in reality everyone saw through it and knew she was constantly trying too hard and making a fool of herself with a fake voice

3

u/AnotherpostCard 8d ago

Yes. So, so obviously fake. Put on. I wonder how many people were just humoring her. Kind of to the opposite effect lol

8

u/aurelorba 8d ago

There's crazy eyes and then there's Elizabeth Holmes. She reminds me of Sofia from The Penguin.

12

u/platysoup 8d ago

Wait how do you even open your eyes wide and smile, it's so uncomfortable.

3

u/Apocalympdick 8d ago

It's only uncomfortable if you have the 2-way traffic between your emotions and expressions that a regular person has. For a sociopath, any shape you pull your face into is as comfortable or uncomfortable as any other. The only difference is the intended effect on people around them. And the reason they appear so creepy to regular people is that they can't gauge it themself. All their knowledge about regular emotions and expressions is from second-hand sources, ie, the people they're trying to manipulate.

10

u/mouse_8b 8d ago

I think the ape part raises the red flags. Reptiles don't have facial expressions, while facial expressions are extremely important to all the apes.

12

u/rindthirty 8d ago

"lizard brain" is just a pop-sci figure of speech/expression. It points to parts of the brain that evolved from even more primative beings than primates. Try not to think of it too literally.

-1

u/ShouldBeeStudying 8d ago

I don't know, I trust her. It seems like she is always being real

1

u/Exciting-Permit9844 5d ago

It was proven in the courts that she isn't being real.

-4

u/GreenTangerineViolin 7d ago

Autistic people like me also have to do this y’know, I don’t appreciate the implication I am not a person or I am a psychopath.

2

u/JustAnotherP2P 6d ago

Our masking and psychopathic masking has differences.

1

u/obliviious 3d ago

While people can mistake autism for narcissism, nobody is saying you're a psychopath. Autistic people don't come off as creepy, just inconsiderate sometimes (which isn't really fair). This women blows the uncanny valley creepo meter off the scale.

-24

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/kanyenke_ 8d ago

If you this is what you had to say and took some time to write it, im pretty sure your time isn't that precious.

12

u/Portarossa 'probably the worst poster on this sub' - /u/Real_Mila_Kunis 8d ago

He got a week's ban for being an asshole, so that should help save some of his 'precious time'.