Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection • Hacker News Board

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#361

Post by rhines » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #284

j2kun wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like taking issue with a word, even when used in a perfectly valid situation, is something worth reflection. Like fair enough if you've heard problematic used in ways you disagree with before, but maybe respond to those comments, not one where you agree with its use. Unless you actually do mean to defend Musk and don't think lying to investors, calling people pedos for saving kids, delaying public infrastructure, doing Nazi salutes, etc. etc. is problematic.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#362

Post by andy_ppp » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

longislandguido wrote: post #304

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…

> The fact that they have so much wealth is a testament that their way of thinking is always right. At least wealth is a quantifiable measure of success in our society. In contrast, many posters on HN think they're always right (it's notorious for it) with no qualifications whatsoever. This discussion is a sea of jealously and a perfect example.

Everyone thinks they are right, but it’s having the grace to be able learn, be wrong and develop is the point here! Also your average HN commenter does not get listened to or promoted anywhere to the same degree!

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#363

Post by gwerbin » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #284

j2kun wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Taking issue with this use of "problematic" says a lot about the speaker too.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#364

Post by raddan » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:44 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #321

longislandguido wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that they have so much wealth is a testament that their way of thinking is always right. At least wealth is a quantifiable measure of success in our society. In contrast, many posters on HN think they're always right (it's notorious for it) with no qualifications whatsoever. This discussion is a sea of jealously and a perfect example.

There is obviously some minimum level of competence and intelligence required to be wealthy (not losing all of it), but for many becoming fabulously wealthy is as much a matter of circumstance than anything else. I would guess most people here would also be billionaires if they had the same opportunities and circumstances as Musk.

This reminds of me the following wonderful Numberphile video [1] where they compare the success of billionares to gas molecules: "everybody is just bumping around randomly but the one person that, you know, that became a billionare or something--they wrote their autobiography 'how I got here, all the great decisions I made to beat everybody'... It was just random." I've always wondered whether it would be possible to compute the expected number of billionaires with a model like this. If the number is higher than the expectation, well ok, some fraction of them are consciously steering themselves into billionaire-hood. Otherwise, it's probably dumb luck. It's a fun null hypothesis.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwgdrC8vlE&t=57s

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#365

Post by pstuart » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:44 PM UTC

bigyabai wrote: post #26

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.

Marc "Invest in Crypto" Andreessen can't afford self-reflection? Color me surprised.

Not just crypto in the "ride the lightning that is bitcoin" but NFTs. FFS, that takes some serious lack of introspection as to assign any value to those things other than laundering money and duping the public.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#366

Post by acdha » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:45 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?

You definitely got wiser—we all do—but I think there’s also a big shift in both what they think they can say safely in public and the sycophantic reinforcement they get on social media. Rich guys have always had that problem to some extent but it used to be less public—nothing like Musk just tossing out some inane insight while high and getting hundreds of thousands of fans applauding. Human brains don’t handle that well, and you can tell these guys haven’t had to defend an idea rigorously in years.

Another factor seems to be the way corporate valuations have become increasingly untethered from actual value. It’s not like there isn’t historical precedent for people getting rich by luck but thinking they’re geniuses, but the tech world has become really weird about that in ways which amplify the previous no-filter point: it’s one thing to be, say, a Netscape millionaire but parlaying that into billionaire status really gets into the point where they never have to hear unwanted criticism and are guaranteed to be treated as sources of wisdom regardless of the applicability of their experience.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#367

Post by pstuart » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

slopinthebag wrote: post #313

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Consume their egregious wealth?

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#368

Post by rhines » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #340

krunck wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like peak brain is probably like 22 years old Ah, but peak wisdom? Much later.

Only because we don't allow ourselves to get serious until we hit like 25 years old imo, and only barely then. Imagine a 22 year old raised among Shaolin monks. Probably would be the wisest person you will ever meet.

I'm not sure. There's value from teachings, but there's a certain type of wisdom that only comes from lived experience. Kind of like in software development - a new grad can read Designing Data Intensive Systems and memorize all the answers for "design Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc." interview questions, but someone who actually built a platform with millions of users is going to have a different level of understanding. In my life, I can say that no amount of learning from others prepared me for what I learned about myself during my first relationship.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#369

Post by Zigurd » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

svachalek wrote: post #292

Zigurd wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how humans came to populate areas that previously were dominated by predators who would be obviously deadly to individual humans. Cooperation and planning are what made physically weak humans dominant. That cooperation and planning developed and flourished without authoritarian structures.

Tribal chiefs are not authoritarians? Because basically every Stone Age village has one.

Read some Charles Mann. Tribal leaders if they can really be described as leaders had to work with consensus and cooperation. Modern society is much more coercive.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#370

Post by bluecheese452 » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

Sl1mb0 wrote: post #32

lenerdenator wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that we have made the latter condition an alias for the former. Redefining competence and intelligence as "ability to make money" has done untold damage to American society.

I have a personal belief that this is a result of the "can-do" attitude that pervades not only American society currently; but virtually all of American history. A small group of colonies managed to win a war against what was considered at one point the globe's strongest empire. Throughout the history-narrative of America there is a prevailing sense that the underdog can always overcome their circumstances and win th…

Political elites in a vast colony far from the empire’s center gambled that the empire did not have the will to grind out an expensive victory against fellow elites. This proved to be correct.