Live data from Hacker News

Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

thenation.com

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#31

Adreessen seems like he's working from a definition of "introspection" that is something like: "negative thoughts and feelings towards the self; unproductive self-criticism, regret" In other words, a mental doom-loop. But that's not really what introspection means at all. Healthy introspection is simply attention, curiosity and reasoning applied to the self. It doesn't have to be the kind of mental self-flagellation…

> thumb of the mind

An apt choice of words given the subject's unique blessing

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#32

I think Marvin Minsky was the first person that I saw take a stand against "knowing yourself" Minsky himself struggled with Freud, wanted to reject Freud, yet found he couldn't do so entirely. With a little more insight than Andreesen he traced "pathological self-knowing" to Eastern roots including meditation practice. What everybody gets wrong about Andreesen is that Andreesen's origin story of being radicalized thr…

> notorious conservative pugilist David Horowitz "From 1956 to 1975, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected progressive ideas and became a defender of neoconservatism. Horowitz recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospective books, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

Yeah, that's basically all of the original Neo-Conservatives. Many of them started out as Trotskyites, like Irving Kristol, James Burnham, Sidney Hook, and others. Arguably Bayard Rustin had a similar trajectory.

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#33

I think Marvin Minsky was the first person that I saw take a stand against "knowing yourself" Minsky himself struggled with Freud, wanted to reject Freud, yet found he couldn't do so entirely. With a little more insight than Andreesen he traced "pathological self-knowing" to Eastern roots including meditation practice. What everybody gets wrong about Andreesen is that Andreesen's origin story of being radicalized thr…

> notorious conservative pugilist David Horowitz "From 1956 to 1975, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected progressive ideas and became a defender of neoconservatism. Horowitz recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospective books, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

The New Left / Marxist to neocon or hard right pipeline is a thing. A bunch of the Bush-era neocons were former Marxists. There's a few notable present-day neoreactionaries and other hard-right types that were former Marxists.

Backing up a bit, I've long observed that a decent number of highly educated and intelligent folks tend to gravitate toward authoritarian politics. That's because, being smart and educated, they obviously know how everything should work and can centrally plan society with their superior intellect. Obviously.

Marxism/Leninism delivers that. So does hard-right nationalism and neoreactionary ideology. It's not a big jump. Basically it's a jump you make when you're either tired of losing (Marxism is not popular in the West) or you abandon nominal egalitarianism.

I said nominal egalitarianism because all authoritarian systems and political ideologies are inherently elitist. All authoritarian ideologies disregard the opinions of "lesser" people, who either don't matter (right-wing) or aren't smart enough to know what's good for them (left-wing).

I think this is the real basis of the "horseshoe theory." The horseshoe meets at the extremes because the extremes of the left/right axis are authoritarian and they have that in common. If you end up at one of those poles you've already decided you know better than most people and this gives a kind of "divine right" to boss them around. For the left it's "smart man's burden" and for the right it's "divine right of kings" type stuff.

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#34

It’s funny that everyone is coming around to understanding the rich elite are mostly socio- and psychopaths. People who were clued into them early were told they were rude for calling them out but now the they are just admitting it straight up. I’m sorry to say it but Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Sama, and Bezos are clearly on that spectrum. And no, it’s not autism it’s sociopathy — they view us as NPCs and call empathy…

The double standard I see across all political and cultural lines is people that demand empathy for them while they demonstrate none for an arbitrary outgroup or one specific to their personal lived experience. This is basically using emotion to drive thoughts rather than emotions to inform thoughts. I have doubts this will go away anytime soon given it takes an incredible amount of effort for people to critically examine themselves. I liken it to debugging and reverse engineering your brain and nervous system.

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#35

I think Marvin Minsky was the first person that I saw take a stand against "knowing yourself" Minsky himself struggled with Freud, wanted to reject Freud, yet found he couldn't do so entirely. With a little more insight than Andreesen he traced "pathological self-knowing" to Eastern roots including meditation practice. What everybody gets wrong about Andreesen is that Andreesen's origin story of being radicalized thr…

> I think Marvin Minsky was the first person that I saw take a stand against "knowing yourself"

  Ordinarily M. de Villefort made and returned very few visits. His wife
  visited for him, and this was the received thing in the world, where
  the weighty and multifarious occupations of the magistrate were
  accepted as an excuse for what was really only calculated pride, a
  manifestation of professed superiority—in fact, the application of the
  axiom, _Pretend to think well of yourself, and the world will think
  well of you_, an axiom a hundred times more useful in society nowadays
  than that of the Greeks, “Know thyself,” a knowledge for which, in our
  days, we have substituted the less difficult and more advantageous
  science of _knowing others_.
"The Count of Monte Cristo". Alexandre Dumas. 1846.

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#36

It’s funny that everyone is coming around to understanding the rich elite are mostly socio- and psychopaths. People who were clued into them early were told they were rude for calling them out but now the they are just admitting it straight up. I’m sorry to say it but Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Sama, and Bezos are clearly on that spectrum. And no, it’s not autism it’s sociopathy — they view us as NPCs and call empathy…

I miss Alex Karp on your list.

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#37

It’s funny that everyone is coming around to understanding the rich elite are mostly socio- and psychopaths. People who were clued into them early were told they were rude for calling them out but now the they are just admitting it straight up. I’m sorry to say it but Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Sama, and Bezos are clearly on that spectrum. And no, it’s not autism it’s sociopathy — they view us as NPCs and call empathy…

Don't forget Lawnmower Ellison

Actually I would prefer to lol. But yes, him especially. I think there is a sort of necessary degree of narcissism and megalomania that must be involved to run corporations of this scale. Which is fine and all but when your product is a beta quality robotic death machine and you want to run your tests on public roads, or let’s get teens addicted to our product on purpose and who cares if they off themselves, that’s when it crosses from “quirky control freak” (jobs) to “dangerous megalomaniac” (the rogues gallery from the last post)

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#38
post #27
post #7

I've always been a bit embarrassed by the extent of my self-conciousness, but recently I'm starting to think of it as more of a virtue than a hindrance.

Virtue is something the virtueless prey upon. However, the takeaway is not to abandon virtue, it's to censure the virtueless. There are far more of us than there are of them.

The most dangerous people throughout history take morality very seriously. They have so much commitment to their moral system that they're willing to kill millions of people to enforce it.

People like Andreessen are not without morality. Their moral system is right-libertarianism.

The people I am least afraid of are those who are without a deep fixation on morality.

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#39
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> notorious conservative pugilist David Horowitz "From 1956 to 1975, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected progressive ideas and became a defender of neoconservatism. Horowitz recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospective books, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

The New Left / Marxist to neocon or hard right pipeline is a thing. A bunch of the Bush-era neocons were former Marxists. There's a few notable present-day neoreactionaries and other hard-right types that were former Marxists. Backing up a bit, I've long observed that a decent number of highly educated and intelligent folks tend to gravitate toward authoritarian politics. That's because, being smart and educated, the…

> Backing up a bit, I've long observed that a decent number of highly educated and intelligent folks tend to gravitate toward authoritarian politics. That's because, being smart and educated, they obviously know how everything should work.

Intelligent yet unwise (otherwise known as stupid) people are the most dangerous combination. The opposite, "wise yet dumb" on the other hand, tend to be fine.

For this reason I'm not a fan of the word "intelligent" as it's so meaningless on its own, yet it instantly evokes positive associations.

Re: Marc Andreessen's dangerously unexamined life

#40
post #20
post #9

> If you go back, like, 400 years ago, it never would have occurred to anybody to be introspective Dunno, Shakespeare died 410 years ago and soliloquies on internal moral dilemmas and emotional states in Macbeth, Othello and Hamlet are a cornerstone of those plays.

Isn’t introspection a necessary ingredient to form morals?

Nesbit and Wilson(1977)[1] suggest that we have little or no direct intro-spective access to higher order cognitive processes.

Most of our behaviors are a result of System I thinking and most of our moral rationalizations exist as System II thinking. It's extremely difficult to do what we feel is wrong so it's easier to intellectually synthesize a frame where we're morally correct than force ourselves to act against our possibly wrong intuitions.

1. https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/482/nisbett%20s...

Post reply on HN