Mental health experts can't agree on what Elizabeth Holmes documentary reveals about her
After watching Nathan Fielder’s film about the Theranos founder, the experts say her behavior shifts depending on who is in the room, leaving them uncertain about a single true identity.
By David Almasi ·
Documentary filmmaker Nathan Fielder’s latest project, “You Can See Everything,” centers on Elizabeth Holmes, the former Theranos CEO who is beginning an 11-year prison sentence in 2023. The film attempts to determine whether Holmes is a calculated con artist or a person who does not fully understand how she communicates with others. Fielder describes Holmes’s communication style as “not normal” in the film.
The Boston Globe arranged a screening of the documentary for three psychologists to analyze Holmes’s behavior. The group includes Alice Connors-Kellgren, director of psychology at Tufts Medical Center; Matt Jerram, a psychologist at Boston Neuropsychological Services; and Kristina Pinto, also of Boston Neuropsychological Services. They viewed the film to assess Holmes’s identity and mental state based on her on-screen interactions.
Jerram said he could not decide if Holmes lied about everything in the film. He noted that her demeanor changed in different settings. He described a high-powered executive persona that contrasted with a version of Holmes who struggled to stand up for herself in personal relationships. Jerram said the difference between these portrayals was striking.
Connors-Kellgren pointed to the concept of reflective functioning, which measures a person’s ability to understand their own thoughts and those of others. She said Holmes scored at the bottom of the scale in this regard. Pinto added that she felt Fielder was trying to extract insight from Holmes that simply was not coming. Pinto described Holmes as blank in her explanations of her own experience.
The psychologists also observed Holmes’s body language. Pinto noted that Holmes blinked very little during the interview. Jerram said her eyes were wide open and her facial expressions were childlike, which seemed designed to draw sympathy. Jerram said that people who are effectively manipulative usually do not appear this way to others. He suggested that effective manipulation goes unnoticed, whereas Holmes’s behavior was visible.
Jerram said he was unsure if Holmes was a talented actress or if she had underlying cognitive difficulties. He noted that she had trouble understanding subtext, similes, and metaphors. Pinto questioned how Holmes could achieve the level of conversational skill required to raise billions in investment if she was so literal in her language. Jerram said this contrast between her impressive business results and her simple communication style was confusing.
Pinto said she felt empathy for Holmes only in the context of her relationship with Billy Evans. Connors-Kellgren described the dynamic as controlling, suggesting Evans was getting more out of the relationship than Holmes was. Jerram said he felt Evans was using Holmes for what he could gain. Pinto said she wondered how literal and concrete Holmes was in the film compared to her business interactions.
The experts discussed whether Holmes showed signs of a personality disorder. Jerram said her literal view of the world could be an indicator, but he wanted more data before drawing a final conclusion. He noted that personality disorders often do not cause as much personal distress as other disorders, and Holmes did not appear distressed by her own behavior. Pinto said Holmes’s identity shifted depending on the relationship, which raised questions about her personality.
