Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

joanwestenberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 513 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#191

Post by bdangubic »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #185
steveBK123 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are weird creatures in this regard. Give them 5% of their compensation / 0.0001% of a company in stock/options and suddenly they think they have become Big Capital. If you need to work to collect a wage to pay your expenses, you are still labor, sorry if that hurts peoples feelings, but it shouldn't.

John Steinbeck: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires”

truer words have yet to be spoken

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#192

Post by jdelman »

ahnick wrote: post #161

This blog post and all the comments in response feel very tautological. I think Marc has a fairly simple point here, which is don't spend time dwelling on the past. Learn from the past, take away information about how things can be improved, but then make a plan (for whatever it is that you are building/doing) and move forward with that plan. In the podcast, he basically lays out that the A16Z thesis is that there is…

That’s simply not what introspection is, though.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#193

Post by wat10000 »

I'm not sure he's entirely wrong.

I have a theory that a large fraction of the population is not conscious. They go about their lives, they still work and think and have emotions in some form, but they don't actually experience. In other words, they're P-zombies. (Note: I do NOT support any actual action based on this idea. This certainly doesn't suggest that it would be morally acceptable to do anything to that group that wouldn't be acceptable to do to the rest.)

This is by analogy to mental imagery. For a long time, there was a debate over whether people actually saw mental imagery in some real sense, or whether it was just a way of describing more symbolic thought. These days the general consensus seems to be that it varies, where someone might see extremely lifelike images, or more vague images, or none at all.

Since it's all about internal experience, people had a hard time understanding that their experience wasn't necessarily the same as everyone else's. The same might be true of consciousness.

This started out as mostly a joke or a thought experiment, but more and more I'm thinking it might actually be true. Statements like Andreessen's really push me in that direction. It's such a baffling statement... unless Andreessen is a P-zombie, then it makes perfect sense. And if he is, he probably thinks this whole consciousness idea is just a weird analogy for perception, and thinks we're a bunch of weirdos for acting like his statement isn't something obvious.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#194

Post by mayneack »

visarga wrote: post #169
rybosworld wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Dillon said summarized it pretty well - can't remember or find the exact quote. Something to the effect of: "Look around at all these things I have - how could I be wrong when I have so much?" And that's how you get the Andreessen's and Musk's of the world stating these nonsensical things as truth. In their minds, financial success is the ultimate yardstick. The fact that they have so much wealth is a testament t…

> In their minds, financial success is the ultimate yardstick. In a loopy recursive way, it is. Cost gates what we can do and become. Paying back your costs to extend your runway is the working principle behind biology, economy and technology. I am not saying rich people are always right, just that cost is not so irrelevant to everything else. I personally think cost satisfaction explains multiple levels, from biolog…

That may or may not be true in aggregate, but for extreme outliers it's impossible to separate from survivorship bias. Are Musk and Andreeson really the most skilled entrepreneurs in the world or are they just good enough for luck to propel them to stratospheric success?

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#195

Post by azinman2 »

wodenokoto wrote: post #31

Is the 1 percenters getting dumber or acting like it? Like 10 years ago, I felt like Andreesen and Elon were thought leaders. Now they sound like idiots. Did I or did they change? Did I grow up and they changed to a younger audience and what I used to enjoy was just a different kind of stupid?

They got radicalized, which was intensional from the right. Further, wealth and time has shifted the hippy ethos of the valley to libertarianism.

It’s amazing how often becoming rich makes one into a libertarian :)

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#196

Post by pjmorris »

bluGill wrote: post #111
gassi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've taken the position that anything the ultra-wealthy say is likely wrong, and every decision they take will negatively affect society, unless and until its corroborated by an unbiased source with expertise in the subject matter.

The ultra-wealthy are no different from anyone else. However the effects of their decisions - both good and bad - tend to be much larger than what most of us can do.

I agree that the consequences are greater. There seem to be at least two perspectives on whether wealth makes you different:

1. In 1926, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that the rich “are different from you and me,” and Ernest Hemingway supposedly retorted, “Yes, they have more money.”

2. Kurt Vonnegut's obituary for Joseph Heller...

True story, Word of Honor: Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer now dead, and I were at a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island. I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel to know that our host only yesterday may have made more money than your novel ‘Catch-22’ has earned in its entire history?” And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.” And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?” And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.” Not bad! Rest in peace!”

Or, as Cyndi Lauper sang it, 'Money Changes Everything'

I'm of the latter persuasion, that wealth influences one's personality in important ways.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#197

Post by poly2it »

ahnick wrote: post #161

This blog post and all the comments in response feel very tautological. I think Marc has a fairly simple point here, which is don't spend time dwelling on the past. Learn from the past, take away information about how things can be improved, but then make a plan (for whatever it is that you are building/doing) and move forward with that plan. In the podcast, he basically lays out that the A16Z thesis is that there is…

Why does he need to make a historical justification for it then? It would be disingenuous if, as the blog author suggests, Andreessen knows better.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#198

Post by [deleted] »

keiferski wrote: post #37

This whole scenario is just the logical conclusion of American anti-intellectualism. The need for intellectuals doesn't really go away, but rather we start assuming that "good at making money" = "has ideas worth listening to, on any topic." Not really surprising that many of these people are also frequent critics of academia and professors.

[deleted]

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#199

Post by aworks »

_fat_santa wrote: post #138
lijok wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They changed. You wouldn’t believe it but those most impacted by the mental rot that social media can induce - are the ultra wealthy.

I have a tangential theory to this. Being rich != being famous. There are tons of extremely wealthy people out there that keep a very low profile. Sure they might be well known within their circle but ask the average person and they have no clue who that person is. I would say this is the case for like 90-95% of billionaires. Musk, Andreessen, Zuck and others were all in this camp 10 years ago but they all decided th…

I need to reread it but Paul Fussell makes the case that old wealth is inconspicuous and secure (and maybe inherited) versus nouveau riche which is about visible luxury, branding, and showy consumption. I don't remember if he mentions the need to promote ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_Ame...

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#200

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

John23832 wrote: post #12

We all know he’s wrong. The problem isn’t that he is wrong, it’s that we have elevated the wealthy into a status where they can be wrong, have no correction, and make decisions whole clothe which negatively affect the rest of us. All while being insulated from their negative world view.

Immense wealth or power should be difficult to hold on to. Until our policymakers understand that we'll have to occasionally resort to the Luigi method.
Post reply on HN