[flagged]
“Bankman-Fried’s parents, Joe Bankman and Barbara Fried, were seated in the third row behind members of the press.
They appeared to oscillate between dejection and defiance, at times holding their heads in their hands and clasping their hands. Bankman-Fried’s mother audibly laughed several times when her son was referred to as a “fugitive” and his father occasionally put his fingers in his ears as if to drown out the sound of the proceedings.” (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/13/inside-sam-bank...)
Notice that she only laughed when Sam Bankman Fried was labeled a fugitive. My guess is she laughed because she believed he was innocent and because he was in court!
Basically, the above poster did not include context about Ms. Fried’s laugh. The post made it sound like she was disrespectful, arrogant or crazy. Once context is added, it is clear she probably laughed because she did not believe her son was a fugative.
> Neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran states "We have nervous laughter because we want to make ourselves think what horrible thing we encountered isn't really as horrible as it appears, something we want to believe."
One thing I forgot to put in my original comment (which you replied to) is none of us know what she was thinking. I think we should give both parents the benefit of the doubt until we have strong evidence showing they behaved improperly or our criminals.
I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve prison, but that doesn’t invalidate her pain either, it would be a terribly cruel experience for any parent.
Could someone with a background in trial law explain why she would do this? Is the entire family just bad at emotional regulation? If so, is this common among professors at a top-3 law school?
Honestly, if you want to distinguish "human" from "lizard in a human skin suit", "animal" (a la Gom Jabbar), or "machine"*, the "Rubber Chicken Bearing Test" (https://youtu.be/9AqqmjGzeTQ) is your aqua regia**!
* Forget the "Turing test" ... ***
** Or, aqua humanus ... or aqua homo ... to put it in words the channers undoubtedly lurking here might understand :)
*** More seriously, probably forget any "test" ... aside from "probing all the way through" https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think... ... though, even that seems likely to be inaccurate ... https://youtu.be/Umc9ezAyJv0 ...
All that to say, there reactions are more likely to be those of elite academics and parents, definitely not those of litigation attorneys. Also, both professors are widely thought to be rather free-spirited and gregarious. Additionally, Bankman is a psychologist and seems to really get into the whole California ‘wellness’ and freedom vibe.
People react how they react, but these two are ultra elite academics who dabble in political circles and consultancy, so their world view is going to be different than the family of an average defendant being denied bail in a court.
Here's the original CoinDesk report that the meme spun off from. It's pretty obvious these people were stressed out of their minds, and understandably so:
> They appeared to oscillate between dejection and defiance, at times holding their heads in their hands and clasping their hands. Bankman-Fried’s mother audibly laughed several times when her son was referred to as a “fugitive” and his father occasionally put his fingers in his ears as if to drown out the sound of the proceedings.
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/13/inside-sam-bank...
Saying "this trial is unnecessary" in a way that gets attention is also a way of highlighting your experience (especially when not exactly given a podium in the event), expressing an opinion, and possibly holding onto some respect. Which is pretty relevant at all sorts of levels. Maybe even keeping a given job, etc.
Strange and especially strong expressions, lacking nuance, in the face of e.g. "why TF would you act like that in this setting" is sometimes a telling characteristic of extremely logical people. Logical to the exclusion of lots of other perspectives, even. So, this is really lining up well with the concept of SBF as logic-first, everything else second. Maybe morals second, ethics second, or whatever.
If you want to know where SBF's moral education went missing, you are probably going to have to look at the grandparents or further back at this point. The parents are right in the hard-logic, high-negotiation wheelhouse. This is a situation with known dynamics to them. They are looking to be players. That is a different mindset than most are used to.
These parents are logic- and rhetoric-focused minds, they are used to theatrics deployed for strong effect, they have seen power abused left and right, and you can see that they are very amenable to open protest.
My guess is that they are also pretty fed up with seeing particular aspects of their area of expertise used in an especially emotive way, as opposed to logical, for example.
IMO this is a fascinating study in "the law" (thing we all agree to obey; covert social contracts) vs. "the quote 'law' unquote" e.g. the mindset of deciding whether you don't like it, and if you don't like it DO NOT SUPPORT IT. Cry foul and make yourself known.
That's a very, very uncomfortable dichotomy due to the relatively crosswise distribution of legal/political power by comparison. In the US the legal branch is effectively held captive by stabilization-focused psychology. SBF-type people are going to get crushed perhaps more than most, because stabilization-focused organizations fear innovation and novel thought structures even more than they fear immorality.
Mom & Dad are seriously leaning into their chosen role here and doing so in the face of power; it's worth taking note, and I would add especially so at a theoretical level. (Practical people will always tell you it's best to shut up and not make any waves, but this POV is not exactly where the future of law is coming from, for one)