Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection • Hacker News Board

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#281

Post by tsunamifury » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:05 PM UTC

quantummagic wrote: post #125

thedima wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like the way you put it: “It’s okay to be wrong. We’re all wrong from time to time. What’s not okay is not having a way to be corrected by the outside world for a specific reason: being at the top of the political pyramid, being ultra-wealthy and surrounded by flattery, etc"

You're right, but we've never devised any system that prevents this from happening. Every single organization leads to a concentration of wealth and power. And even those ideally conceived to have counterbalancing forces, eventually are corrupted and subverted. It seems to be the steady state of reality.

All of reality clumps no? Any grouping tends to attract more grouping, because the force that created the group increases as its groups more. Be it wealth, power, or sheer mass.

This feels like a rule of the universe, from plants and solar systems to wealth portfolios.

Only catastrophic events break it up.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#282

Post by simianwords » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:05 PM UTC

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…

You are right, a simpler way to frame it is: Marc is not anti introspection but post introspection in that there's something beyond introspection. The author seems to have made an uncharitable take for easy virality.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#283

Post by asdff » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:06 PM UTC

pjmorris wrote: post #196

bluGill wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

I think the Hemingway line could read two ways. He could be saying there is no difference save for having money. Or, he could be implying money is corrupting and would lead to the same observed behaviors no matter who gets rich.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#284

Post by piker » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:06 PM UTC

j2kun wrote: post #227

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.

Elon was always problematic. His increasing social media use removed the natural filters that prevented people from seeing it.

I'm not defending Musk, but "problematic" used in this type of context is one of those words that says more about the speaker than it does the subject.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#285

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

an0malous wrote: post #263

ceejayoz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Going back four hundred years, it would have never occurred to anyone that humans shouldn’t be slaves… Philosophers considered that even before Christ . https://www.cnbc.com/2011/06/03/the-ancient-and-noble-greek-... "A fragment of Solon’s poetry describes a situation in which many of the poor “have arrived in foreign lands/sold into slavery, bound in shameful fetters.”" "In 594 BC, Solon was appointed archon of At…

Andreesen and I are both talking about trends, not that literally no one thought of introspection or the immorality of slavery four hundred years ago

Andreesen: “If you go back, like, 400 years ago, it never would have occurred to anybody to be introspective."

You: "it would have never occurred to anyone that humans shouldn’t be slaves"

Come on. Words have meaning.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#286

Post by insane_dreamer » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

scottious wrote: post #267

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?

I remember when Elon came up with the hyper loop idea and everybody I worked with at the time thought it was revolutionary. These were very smart people who were fooled. In hindsight, how could we all have fell for this? What a profoundly stupid idea, but I distinctly remember at the time it felt right. I guess what I'm saying is that I think a lot of people just wised up and started seeing through his B.S.

I really dislike Elon as a person, but didn't the hyperloop POC work? I admittedly haven't followed it in long time.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#287

Post by simianwords » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

DiscourseFan wrote: post #279

I think this blog post doesn't quite understand Andreessen's position. In fact, perhaps Andreessen doesn't understand his own position, which makes this even worse. Freud isn't the issue; Freud did not think the unconscious was "inside," he said the unconscious is the metapsychological apparatus which is the result of primary repression (something we all experience at a young age, since we don't remember, for instanc…

You have got it right (though IDK what you mean by unity and zero), the author is even less well read than Andreesen so their arguments make no sense since they don't have this background.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#288

Post by irishcoffee » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #222

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…

What I took from the video game thing is that he thought he could fool people. It's very obvious to gamers when someone hasn't played, it actually doesn't matter whether you have high level gear. There's things you can't buy with money, and respect is one of them. He fundamentally doesn't understand how status works. He could, for free, just put out a video where he says "look at me, I'm a busy CEO, but I play this g…

This is made even more interesting by the fact that musk was caught misrepresenting himself playing the computer game Diablo in the not-so-distant past. IIRC he was either buying accounts or paying someone else to stream on his behalf. [0]

[0]https://fortune.com/2025/01/20/elon-musk-video-games-scandal...

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#289

Post by asdff » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

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?

I think people get dumber as they age. I feel like I'm probably dumber than me 10 years ago. No one wants to admit it, but I sense it in myself and I think I can see it in other people. I feel like peak brain is probably like 22 years old if we are being honest. Yeah you might still be doing dumb kid stuff but you are at the age where you just have this energizer bunny inside. You can just go to the library and churn multiple all day and night sessions. Sleep in one day and perfectly recovered. I "know" more now but I'm definitely slower than when I was younger.

Would be great if we didn't spend so much time faffing in school on stupid stuff and got into our strides in our career maybe 5-10 years earlier. When I think about my first research job, that could have probably been done in middle school vs undergrad. Wasn't really any more challenging than when I worked part time in a restaurant in terms of the tasks. I probably could have been working on some thesis under an advisor for my hs years instead of being stretched thin over the boilerplate curriculum. And then I probably could enter the workforce at 18 and have enough to get up to speed on the job pretty fast. By 22 I'd be in management right at the peak of my mental faculties and skill buildup.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#290

Post by NoLinkToMe » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:09 PM UTC

_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 think Musk definitely financed many of his ventures on his personal brand. The amount of capital he could raise because of his public persona as some kind of Tony Stark, made all the difference.

Same for Andreessen, a VC's success is built on his ability to raise capital and pick winners. His whole strategy, like Musk, was also on building a public persona to raise capital and get people to believe in his picks.