Res·Cog

Clarity on building thinking things,
by Gareth Price, CTO @ CorralData.

How to Win Fiends and Influential People

Jeffrey Epstein built his network using techniques indistinguishable from those in every bestselling book on professional relationships. For anyone who has ever found networking advice faintly repellent, the Epstein files finally explain why.

14 min read · Updated

4 commits
  1. ae1f9ef +1 −1 Remove redundant opening sentence from billion-dollar minimum paragraph
  2. bee17a0 +2 −2 Update post dates to 2026-03-13
  3. 9802097 +1 −13 Remove section dividers and rename Manhattan heading
  4. 4dc6835 +150 Add new post "How to Win Fiends and Influential People"

Go to jmail.world and log in. You will find yourself inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Gmail inbox — or rather, a pixel-perfect parody of it, built in five hours by Riley Walz, a software engineer known for viral data projects, and Luke Igel, co-founder of Kino AI, a video search company.1 The site has drawn 450 million visits since November 2025. Type “island” and get 168 results. Quora notifications sit between messages to Steve Bannon, a political strategist and Trump ally. A Flipboard digest arrives moments after an exchange with Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister. The interface is mundane by design — the same grid of bold subject lines and truncated previews you see in your own inbox every morning. The banality is the point. So is the legibility: for the first time, the internal mechanics of an elite social network are visible at the level of individual emails, individual introductions, individual favours asked and granted.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed by President Trump on 19 November 2025, compelled the Department of Justice to release 3.5 million pages of documents, over 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images.2 What emerges from this material is not a conspiracy chart. It is a case study in network construction — the most granular record ever assembled of how a single person built and maintained access to the worlds of finance, science, politics, and media simultaneously. Every technique Epstein used maps precisely onto the advice in the bestselling books on professional networking. This is the fact the networking industry would rather not discuss.

Before going further: Jeffrey Epstein was a sex trafficker who systematically abused dozens of underage girls over decades, using his wealth and connections to recruit, groom, and silence his victims. Ghislaine Maxwell, his chief recruiter and former girlfriend, is serving a twenty-year sentence.3 The girls at the centre of this — many of them high-school students who arrived thinking they had been hired to give massages — had their lives damaged in ways no analytical frame can adequately address. As Awino Okech, a professor of feminist and security studies at SOAS University of London, has argued, the women and girls were not peripheral to the network; they were central to how those connections were built, maintained, and sustained.4 What follows examines the structural mechanics, not because they matter more than the crimes, but because understanding how the machinery worked is a prerequisite for ensuring it cannot work again.

Information wants to be free, introductions cost extra

If you have spent time in the technology industry, you have been told to network. You have also, probably, found the prospect faintly repulsive.

The instinct is more interesting than squeamishness. The internet — and particularly the culture that grew out of open source, the cypherpunk tradition, the hacker ethos — was built on assumptions structurally opposed to how networking operates. Open protocols beat proprietary ones. Information wants to be free. The best code wins regardless of who wrote it. Linus’s Law: given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.5 The whole stack, from TCP/IP to open-source licensing, is built on the premise that the person sitting between two parties extracting rent is a problem to be engineered away, not a role to aspire to. When a developer hears “bridge structural holes” — the sociologist Ron Burt’s influential finding that individuals who connect otherwise disconnected groups capture disproportionate career advantages — they hear “become a tollbooth on an information highway.”6

And yet. Silicon Valley’s actual power structure looks nothing like its open-source ideology. It runs on warm introductions, partner meetings, demo days, invitation-only dinners, and Signal groups. The cognitive dissonance between “information wants to be free” and “can you make a warm intro to the partner at Sequoia” is one of the technology industry’s great unexamined contradictions. Networking advice feels dishonest to people in tech not because tech people are unusually principled, but because the advice conflicts with the founding mythology of the medium they work in — even as they participate in the same dynamics every working day.

Epstein’s career demonstrates what happens when you drop the mythology and run the playbook undiluted.

A climber who climbs

Open any bestselling book on professional relationships — Keith Ferrazzi’s Never Eat Alone, a guide to relationship-building through generosity; Adam Grant’s Give and Take, an organisational psychologist’s study of reciprocity styles; the chapter on connectors in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point — and you will find the same core advice.7 Bridge disconnected groups. Host gatherings. Lead with generosity. Make introductions. Be extraordinarily responsive. Build before you need. Add Robert Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion — the foundational 1984 text arguing that human decision-making is governed by six exploitable principles: scarcity, social proof, authority, reciprocity, consistency, liking — and you have the complete toolkit.8 Network like Ferrazzi, give like Grant, persuade like Cialdini, and the world is yours.

Now trace Epstein’s career against this canon.

“Bridge structural holes.” Burt’s empirical research across hundreds of supply-chain managers found that brokerage position correlated with better ideas, higher wages, and faster promotion.6 Epstein’s career was structural hole exploitation applied with sociopathic discipline. Billionaires wanted intellectual prestige; scientists wanted funding; politicians wanted donors; everyone wanted to be in a room with everyone else. Epstein sat between them all. His funding of the Edge Foundation, an intellectual salon run by the literary agent John Brockman — $638,000 of its roughly $857,000 in total donations — purchased the position of chief matchmaker between Silicon Valley money and academic celebrity, underwriting the “Billionaires’ Dinners” at TED where Jeff Bezos and Sergey Brin mingled with leading scientists.9

“Lead with generosity.” Grant’s research finds that strategic givers outperform both takers and matchers.7 Epstein gave lavishly: $8.9 million to Harvard, roughly $800,000 to MIT over two decades, millions more through donors he introduced.10 He paid the rent, flights, medical bills, and children’s school fees of Joscha Bach, a German AI researcher, for six years.11 What the networking books call “five-minute favours” — small acts that create disproportionate goodwill — Epstein performed at industrial scale.

“Host gatherings and become the hub.” Epstein hosted salon dinners at his Manhattan townhouse — a 21,000-square-foot theatrical production at 9 East 71st Street, with glass eyeballs in the entrance hall, a stuffed black poodle on the Steinway, and J.P. Morgan’s original desk — mixing Nobel laureates with hedge fund managers while he, who did not drink, watched.12 His private Caribbean island hosted scientific conferences; the 2006 “Confronting Gravity” gathering featured Stephen Hawking and a chartered submarine. Each property served a distinct networking function, with guests shuttled between them on a private 737 that logged over 600 hours per year.13

“Be extraordinarily responsive.” The EFTA emails confirm this: short, choppy, full of typos, but fast. Tens of thousands of messages, most answered quickly. For powerful people accustomed to being filtered through assistants, a peer who actually responded was, apparently, irresistible.14

Every technique that made Epstein’s network function is described approvingly in books that have sold millions of copies.

For every open arm, a cold shoulder

The networking canon leaves out the part that made the machinery actually run. Epstein understood something blunter than structural holes: people want things, and the person who supplies them accumulates power over the people who receive them.

The EFTA emails make this transactional engine visible at the level of individual messages. Scientists got funding and introductions to donors — Martin Nowak, a Harvard mathematician, received $6.5 million directly for his Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, plus $7.5 million through donors Epstein introduced.10 Politicians got access to billionaires. Billionaires got intellectual prestige and invitations to gatherings where they could perform curiosity in the company of physicists. Steven Tisch, a co-owner of the New York Giants mentioned over 400 times in the files, received introductions to women, including one email with the subject line “Ukrainian girl” in which Epstein praised a woman’s appearance in crude terms.15

The supply chain did not end with introductions and grant money. The EFTA files and the testimony of survivors make clear that access to young women and girls was part of what Epstein provided to at least some members of his network. The victims were not incidental to the networking; for some participants, they were the product. As Ms. Magazine noted, whatever people received from Epstein — access to career-enhancing people, access to young girls, an endless supply of freebies — kept the connectivity relevant.16 Harvard’s own review found that Epstein visited Nowak’s lab over 40 times after his 2008 conviction, “typically accompanied by young women serving as his assistants.”10 Released emails show elite male scientists making derogatory comments about women’s intellectual capacity; one AI researcher suggested it is “hard to be brilliant if you are worrying if you look fat.”17 The network was not indifferent to women. It actively excluded them from the rooms where funding, connections, and career advancement were distributed.

The broker’s power comes from supplying what each node desires. The broker is not required to care — is structurally incentivised not to care — whether what flows through the node is a grant, an introduction, a dinner invitation, or a human being.

Gilding his cage, one bar at a time

The standard rebuttal: a criminal used a hammer; this does not indict hammers. Comfortable. Incomplete.

Epstein’s network shielded him for decades through information asymmetry: billionaires could not easily verify his claims about scientists, and scientists could not easily verify his claims about billionaires. Burt’s theory names this dynamic. The tertius gaudens — the “third who benefits” — profits precisely because disconnected contacts operate with incomplete information about each other.6 The broker’s advantage is the gap. When Joi Ito, then director of MIT’s Media Lab, accepted Epstein’s funding after the 2008 conviction, he told staff he was “largely influenced and convinced by Epstein’s high-profile connections, all of whom vouched for Epstein’s character.”18 Each participant validated Epstein to the next, in a chain of social proof that no individual link had enough information to question.

This is not a corruption of brokerage theory. It is the theory. The value of the broker depends on knowing more than either side. The networking canon’s answer — “and be transparent about your interests” — is a bolt-on disclaimer, not a structural fix. The broker who connects everyone and transparently steps aside is a pleasant person at a dinner party. The broker who maintains information asymmetry becomes the most connected private citizen in America.

When Epstein established J. Epstein & Company in 1988, he claimed his firm accepted only clients worth more than a billion dollars. A lawyer who once referred a $500 million prospect reported that Epstein turned him away.13 The firm had no marketing, no performance numbers, no client list. His actual client base was tiny: Leslie Wexner, the founder of L Brands — the company behind Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works — who granted Epstein full power of attorney in 1991 over a fortune worth roughly $2 billion, was the only confirmed billionaire client for years.19 Leon Black, co-founder of the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, came later, paying $158 to $170 million in fees between 2012 and 2017.20 Forbes found that Epstein’s two main businesses received over $800 million in revenue between 1999 and 2018 — nearly all from these two people.21

The $1 billion minimum may well have been true — Wexner qualified. That is what made it so effective. It was not a lie but something more instructive: a textbook application of the principles described in Cialdini’s Influence, operating whether or not the claim was accurate, because the architecture made verification feel unnecessary.8 The threshold triggered at least three of Cialdini’s mechanisms simultaneously. Scarcity: only billionaires need apply, so access to Epstein was inherently rare. Social proof: if billionaires trusted this man with their fortunes, he must be extraordinary — even though nobody could verify who his clients actually were. Authority: the claim positioned him as someone operating at such a rarefied level that he could afford to reject half a billion dollars. Each principle reinforced the others in a closed loop. A lie can be caught. A persuasion architecture that renders fact-checking socially inappropriate is self-sustaining.

The 2002 New York Magazine profile by Landon Thomas Jr. captured the result: a “mysterious, Gatsbyesque figure” who cultivated an air of aloofness.13 His net worth at death was roughly $560 million — considerable, but well below what his 737, his townhouse, and his island projected.22 The mystique was the product. Manufacturing mystique is what personal branding has always been for.

Eight people sipping Dom Pérignon in Manhattan

We can see all of this only because Epstein’s moral ambiguity crossed a line into federal crime.

Without the sex trafficking charges, there is no investigation. Without the investigation, there are no documents. Without the EFTA, there are no 3.5 million pages. Without the pages, Epstein is what he was for thirty years — a mysterious financier with excellent dinner parties and an opaque client list, profiled admiringly in glossy magazines, mentioned in passing as a brilliant connector. He would have died as he lived: with the information asymmetry intact.

This is the survivorship bias of scandal. We can map Epstein’s network in granular detail because his version of “giving people what they want” included sex trafficking minors. The techniques — the structural hole exploitation, the manufactured mystique, the generosity that creates dependency, the opacity that prevents verification — are not exclusive to his case. They are standard practice in the world of brokered access. The Manhattan fixer who introduces a hedge fund manager to a senator at a private dinner and the Manhattan fixer who introduces a hedge fund manager to an underage girl at a private dinner are using identical structural mechanics. The moral gulf between those two acts is vast. The operational mechanics are not.

How many people are working the same playbook right now — in Manhattan, in Mayfair, on Sand Hill Road — who will never appear on Jmail because their version stays on the legal side of the line? How many connectors are brokering access, manufacturing mystique, cultivating dependency through strategic generosity, and sitting at the junction of disconnected networks — not to traffic children, but to accumulate social power for its own sake, or to extract fees for introductions no one can independently value, or to build reputations on claims no one can check? The Epstein files do not answer this question. They merely make it impossible to avoid.

The problem is not that a monster used good tools badly. The problem is that the tools work best in conditions of darkness, and the world of brokered access has always depended on there being rather a lot of darkness around.

A crack in the shell

The files offer a reason for cautious optimism.

The information asymmetry on which Epstein’s network depended has been, comprehensively and irreversibly, destroyed. Walz and Igel rebuilt a predator’s entire digital life in a searchable interface in five hours. Within days of the January 2026 release, Miroslav Lajčák, Slovakia’s national security adviser, had resigned after his communications with Epstein surfaced.23 Open-source tools indexed 900,000 documents with relationship mapping across 148 individuals.24 Drop Site News, an investigative outlet, partnered with the Jmail team to vet and expand the archive. The Columbia Journalism Review praised the project for making the scandal “hyperlegible.”25

The old boys’ network — the kind that runs on whispered introductions and unverifiable claims and the implicit understanding that what happens at the dinner party stays there — is structurally incompatible with this degree of transparency. The broker’s power depends on controlling information flow between disconnected groups. But the groups are harder to keep disconnected than they were a decade ago. The emails get released, the PDFs get parsed, the interfaces get built, the networks get mapped. Walz and Igel did not set out to write a treatise on network theory. They set out to make public data legible. The effect was the same.

None of this helps the women and girls already harmed. No volume of open data provides adequate accountability for the decades in which the network operated in shadow. But the techniques that made Epstein’s network possible — the opacity, the unverifiable claims, the chains of vouching nobody could independently check — are becoming structurally harder to sustain. The EFTA is a precedent. The tools are getting cheaper. The engineers are getting faster. The instinct of a culture raised on open protocols — that gatekeepers are problems to be routed around, that information asymmetry is a bug rather than a feature — turns out to be, in this application, exactly right.

The stuffed poodle on the Steinway is in the files now, too. Everybody can see it. It is no longer mysterious, and therefore no longer useful.

  1. The Jmail project is described in detail in Columbia Journalism Review and Rolling Stone. See Igel’s account of the project’s origins in Yapalater, L. (2025, November 24). Jeffrey Epstein emails given ‘Jmail’ makeover by digital artists. Rolling Stone. Walz’s earlier projects include the Panama Playlists, which exposed the Spotify listening habits of public figures, and a real-time San Francisco parking enforcement tracker. ↩

  2. Epstein Files Transparency Act, Pub. L. No. 119-38 (2025). The Act passed the House 427–1 and was signed into law on 19 November 2025. The DOJ released 3.5 million pages on 30 January 2026, though roughly half the documents it holds remain undisclosed. See Epstein Files Transparency Act. (2025). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_Files_Transparency_Act ↩

  3. Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on five counts, including sex trafficking of a minor, and sentenced to twenty years. United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). ↩

  4. Okech, A. (2026). Epstein files: We need to talk about the girls and young women, not powerful men. SOAS University of London. https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blogs/epstein-files-girls-women-centre-abuse-network ↩

  5. Raymond, E. S. (1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. O’Reilly Media. “Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterised quickly and the fix obvious to someone.” ↩

  6. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press. The tertius gaudens concept and the empirical findings on brokerage and career outcomes are developed further in Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Ferrazzi, K. (2005). Never Eat Alone: And Other Secrets to Success, One Relationship at a Time. Currency Doubleday. Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. Viking. Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown. ↩ ↩2

  8. Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. William Morrow. The six principles — reciprocity, commitment/consistency, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity — were expanded to seven in the 2021 revised edition, which added “unity.” ↩ ↩2

  9. Aldhous, P. (2019, September 26). How Jeffrey Epstein bankrolled an exclusive intellectual boys club and reaped the benefits. BuzzFeed News. The article details Edge Foundation funding records and the Billionaires’ Dinner events. ↩

  10. Harvard University Office of the General Counsel. (2020). Report Concerning Jeffrey E. Epstein’s Connections to Harvard University. The report details $8.9 million in total donations, the Nowak lab arrangements, the 40+ post-conviction visits, and the “young women serving as his assistants” finding. The $7.5 million in introduced donors is also documented there. MIT’s donations are detailed in Goodwin Procter LLP. (2020). Report Concerning Jeffrey Epstein’s Interactions with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. The Bach arrangement is reported in Why did Jeffrey Epstein cultivate famous scientists? (2019, August 13). Scientific American. ↩

  12. The townhouse’s interior is described in Ward, V. (2003, March). The talented Mr. Epstein. Vanity Fair. The stuffed poodle, the glass eyeballs, and the J.P. Morgan desk all appear in Ward’s account of her visit. ↩

  13. Thomas, L., Jr. (2002, October 28). Jeffrey Epstein: International moneyman of mystery. New York Magazine. The profile contains the “mysterious, Gatsbyesque figure” description, the $1 billion minimum claim, and the $500 million rejection anecdote. The 737 flight hours are also from this profile. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. The responsiveness pattern is discussed in Loury, G. (2026, February). Jeffrey Epstein as middleman: An economic analysis. The Glenn Show (Substack). Loury’s formal intermediation analysis frames Epstein’s social capital as “informal claims on others — not legally enforceable and often not even explicit, yet real.” ↩

  15. A list of powerful men named in the Epstein files. (2026, February 1). PBS News / Associated Press. Tisch is mentioned over 400 times; the “Ukrainian girl” email is among the documented correspondence. ↩

  16. Henneberger, M. (2026, February 12). The pathetic price of entry to Epstein’s world. Ms. Magazine. ↩

  17. The AI researcher’s comment and the broader pattern of derogatory emails about women in science are reported in How Epstein’s influence shaped the exclusion of women in STEM. (2026, March). The 19th. The researcher quoted is Roger Schank, an AI theorist who died in 2023. ↩

  18. The Ito quote is from Farrow, R. (2019, September 6). How an élite university research center concealed its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The New Yorker. Ito resigned as MIT Media Lab director the following day. ↩

  19. The Wexner relationship, power of attorney, and financial details are documented in multiple sources. For the most thorough recent account, see the 2025 New York Times investigation summarised in New York Times details how Les Wexner met sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein as he built wealth. (2025, December 16). WOSU Public Media. ↩

  20. The Leon Black fees are from the Senate Finance Committee investigation. See Wyden unveils ongoing investigation into private equity billionaire Leon Black’s tax planning and financial ties with Jeffrey Epstein. (2023, July 25). United States Senate Committee on Finance. ↩

  21. Forbes’s investigation of Epstein’s revenue is cited in Where did Jeffrey Epstein get his money? Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Where-Did-Jeffrey-Epstein-Get-His-Money ↩

  22. Epstein’s net worth at death is reported in multiple sources, including the New York Times and Britannica, based on court filings from the Epstein estate. ↩

  23. Lajčák resigned on 1 February 2026 after communications with Epstein appeared in the DOJ release. He had not been accused of criminal wrongdoing. A list of powerful men named in the Epstein files. (2026, February 1). PBS News / AP. ↩

  24. The open-source indexing project is documented at Carstensen, T. (2026). Epstein Files Transparency Act resources. https://tommycarstensen.com/epstein/index.html ↩

  25. You’ve got Jmail. (2026). Columbia Journalism Review. The “hyperlegible” characterisation is from Igel’s interview with CJR. ↩