Three psychologists watched the Elizabeth Holmes documentary and found 11 years of prison

The viewer of Nathan Fielder’s documentary, “You Can See Everything,” is left with a specific uncertainty. Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of Theranos, promised radical transparency before her 11-year prison sentence began in 2023. Yet the film’s conclusion offers no clear verdict on whether she is a calculated con artist or an unwitting participant in her own confusion. To resolve this ambiguity, three Boston-area psychologists watched the film and analyzed Holmes’s behavior, identity, and relationships.

The panel included Alice Connors-Kellgren, a psychologist and director at Tufts Medical Center; Matt Jerram, a clinical psychologist at Boston Neuropsychological Services; and Kristina Pinto, a specialist in human development and psychology. Their review focused on the disconnect between Holmes’s public persona and her private interactions, particularly with her partner, Billy Evans.

The film’s title is ironic, as the experts noted that Holmes’s identity appears layered and contradictory. Jerram observed that Holmes presented as a high-powered executive in some scenes and a person who could not stand up for herself in others. He said, “Whether what she was doing in this documentary was the real her versus just another portrayal, it doesn’t matter necessarily. But it was really striking how different the identities were.”

Physical cues played a major role in the psychologists’ assessment. Pinto focused on Holmes’s eyes, noting an unusually low blink rate. Jerram described her expression as wide-eyed and childlike, a tactic that draws in sympathetic observers. Connors-Kellgren argued that Holmes scored low on reflective functioning, the ability to understand one’s own thoughts and motivations. She said, “She is at the bottom of the scale in measuring that.”

The experts debated whether Holmes’s behavior signaled neurodivergence or a high-level performance. Jerram stated, “My feeling was either she is a tremendous actress or, you know, she has actually got some stuff going on.” He noted that she struggled with subtext, similes, and metaphors, despite her ability to raise billions of dollars. Pinto questioned how Holmes accomplished such complex investments using language that appeared so literal and basic in the film.

The relationship between Holmes and Evans provided a different perspective. While the dynamic appeared controlling, with Evans potentially exploiting Holmes for family money, Pinto reported feeling genuine empathy for Holmes in these scenes. Connors-Kellgren described the relationship as one where Holmes was not getting as much out of the arrangement as Evans was. Jerram added that by the end of the film, it seemed Evans was using Holmes for whatever he could get.

The psychologists also considered whether Holmes exhibited signs of a personality disorder. Jerram noted that personality disorders often create less distress for the patient than other conditions, and Holmes did not appear distressed by her own behavior. Pinto pointed out that Holmes’s identity shifted drastically depending on the relationship. In one scene, she claimed she had never lied once; by the film’s end, she acknowledged she no longer had to pretend with Evans.

The film’s structure, which reveals Fielder’s subjective involvement, complicates the analysis. Connors-Kellgren acknowledged that Fielder is not an objective observer. Pinto admitted to feeling she might be taken in by the narrative. The experts concluded that understanding Holmes requires looking beyond superficial labels to how she experiences the world and finds meaning in her shifting identities.