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

311–320 of 513 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#311

Post by fnordpiglet »

I worked with Marc a very long time ago when he was just another nerd and he is the last man I would go to for advice on how to live life. I think if you go to Marc over, say, the Buddha for advice on how to live life you are probably not going to be rich like Marc - that was a lot more path dependency than philosophical inevitability - nor enlightened like the Buddha. You’ll just be an angry man boy that people generally can’t stand to be around.

I thought the best juxtaposition for Marc was when he would present before or after Jim Barksdale - who was in fact a man of extreme dynamism, a true leader, and quintessential entrepreneur. Marc in comparison was an awkward angry man boy that was as inspiring as a cucumber salad.

What Marc did that Jim didn’t was Marc took his wealth and distributed it randomly in various pump and dump schemes and managed to play odds pretty well. This enabled a lot of businesses to come about. Marc didn’t make them. He used his Netscape money to gamble well on them. Jim however actually built things, over and over, that pushed the limits of what man can do.

But I wouldn’t look to Jim on how to live a life worth living either. Buddha, Socrates, there’s thousands of years of well worn insight, and these guys just spend their energy and lives on other things. You would be a fool to listen to them. Learn their biography sure - they’re interesting. But they’re not insightful.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#312

Post by an0malous »

ceejayoz wrote: post #285
an0malous wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was echoing Andreesen's phrasing to make it more clear what I'm responding to, but whatever, enjoy your pedantic dunk.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#313

Post by slopinthebag »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #38
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.

[flagged]

What does "eat the rich" actually mean besides a broad distaste of people who have more?

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#315

Post by keiferski »

scandox wrote: post #307
keiferski wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think it's the same thing at all. For many intellectual fields, I'd say having an academic degree (or a degree's equivalent of knowledge) in the subject is more-or-less required to have an intelligent, novel opinion on the subject. It depends on the field, but just to use one that I'm familiar with, philosophy: everyone seems to think they have novel insights on philosophical issues, but unfortunately the…

> when analyzed by actual philosophers. Kind of proving his point a little

I don’t think competence implies elitism. On many topics, everyone’s opinion isn’t equal. I wouldn’t trust a random person’s opinion on civil engineering; philosophy in the sense of the specific field of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, etc.) is no different. The effects are just more abstract.

Even then I’m not really claiming that academic philosophers are always right and amateur ones always wrong. Rather that amateur philosophers tend to make glaring mistakes that those educated in academic philosophy can easily see.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#316

Post by simianwords »

mpalmer wrote: post #294
rdevilla wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I cleave to the extremes of the hyperintrospective portion of the spectrum, so no, I think taken at face value his comments are absurd. Nonetheless you need to understand the dark and less visited corners of the mental landscape whence these ideas and his (putative) target audiences were borne (Bay Area rationalism), and the strategic nature of this communication which is more intended to send a message to…

But why give him credit for subtext for which there's no apparent evidence? By all appearances he's saying this stuff in earnest. Why does it need to be "encoded"?

Why not give him credit? If you read his other work and the background, all this stuff is obvious.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#317

Post by bko »

rybosworld wrote: post #120
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.

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…

You say financial success as though it is completely independent of pretty much everything. "How could I be wrong, look how handsome I am"

To create great wealth in a vibrant capitalist society you have to have some model about the world you can exploit. It can be a better rocket design, some insight into human psychology that can help you raise money, or something else.

Some people fall ass backwards into money through luck, but that's rare, and people with great wealth don't have that luxury because they would squander it away and won't be able to grow what they have been given. At any extreme, you have to have both luck and skill. The best athletes are both incredibly gifted and incredibly hard working

They could be wrong on some things but to pretend they don't have a somewhat functional world model that is different enough from the consensus that it allows them to exploit it for great wealth is just naive.

I think the flip side would be "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" I prefer why aren't you happy myself, but sure, random person commenting on the internet about how the wealthiest people in the world don't know anything about the world, why haven't you exploited your superior knowledge relative to said billionaire to amass great wealth for yourself?

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#319

Post by cyanydeez »

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.

We've entered the "Emperor has no Clothes; but if I just prend he does, I'll be elevated higher than anyone who says otherwise" or "Lets all try to keep ourselves out of the permanent underclass"

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#320

Post by volkk »

keiferski wrote: post #278
volkk wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

goes both ways. elitism exists on both ends of the spectrum. the academic side is largely the same thing except it's attained from years of schooling through certain pedagogues that tout the one true way and if you haven't been through that wringer, then your understanding doesn't count. true intellectualism, has humility and the everlasting honest pursuit for truth. neither of these extremes have this quality.

No, I don't think it's the same thing at all. For many intellectual fields, I'd say having an academic degree (or a degree's equivalent of knowledge) in the subject is more-or-less required to have an intelligent, novel opinion on the subject. It depends on the field, but just to use one that I'm familiar with, philosophy: everyone seems to think they have novel insights on philosophical issues, but unfortunately the…

> It depends on the field, but just to use one that I'm familiar with, philosophy: everyone seems to think they have novel insights on philosophical issues, but unfortunately these opinions tend to be really, obviously wrong and half-baked when analyzed by actual philosophers.

I think there's a lot of irony and my point being further proven within this sentence

Post reply on HN