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

401–410 of 513 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#401

Post by bko »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #373
bko wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thro…

> Some people fall ass backwards into money through luck, but that's rare You and I have vastly different mental models of the world. Or, at least, very different definitions of “luck”. For example, I would probably say that anyone who is rich through a “family business” has quite a bit of “luck” to thank (by my definition), except for the founder. And even then, the founder is usually “lucky” by connections (e.g. ge…

So your contention is that it's easy to run a family business and manage immense wealth?

I'm going to take a wild guess, but I would bet you never ran a business. I've never heard this from anyone that ran a business. Sure they give you the whole "I am very fortunate and lucky in my life" but never "yes, it's trivial to run a business"

And my other bet would be you had never had any extended interaction with a 90 IQ individual

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#402

Post by volkk »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #397
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.

> 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 Personally, every time I approach an unfamiliar domain I’m shocked by its depth and sophistication, seemingly only made possible by hundreds of thousands of hours given by passionate and inte…

> True intellectualism recognizes the value of institutions and the models and frameworks of organized thought that they produce

there's a lot of asterisks I left out of my initial comment. I think there's a lot to elaborate on. but the shortest version I can state is -- STEM fields suffer from it a lot less where there is a lot of measurable "truth." I think people are jumping on these comments protecting academia (which is fine) but the large point is that academia also suffers from the same effects of which those they look down on

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#403

Post by bigyabai »

rexpop wrote: post #165
pasquinelli wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is so funny for me to read. a few years ago, i would see programmers saying they can negotiate better deals for themselves than a union could. now you're saying it's already over, programming as a skill has a future valuation that's heading to zero. i advise against being so sure of your ideas. maybe you think platform holders have all the cards--test it. if they fight efforts to unionize, that tells a different…

The fatalistic view that "platform holders have all the cards" and that "programming as a skill has a future valuation that's heading to zero" is a common psychological barrier in labor struggles. Oppressed or subordinate groups often suffer from a "diffuse, magical belief in the invulnerability and power of the oppressor"[0]. However, theories of political and social power argue the exact opposite: the power of any…

> If highly skilled individuals like blue-collar technologists and programmers collectively withdraw our human resources

Individuals cannot convince the Subway app, Raycast or LastPass to defect from Apple or Google's platforms. Using those platforms is an executive decision, and Senior iOS/Android engineers will not voice this minority concern or risk their job to advocate for it. Similarly, Apple and Google's platform monopolies are not designed by individual engineers, but executives that will happily pay to replace you if you feel morally unjust.

The only place where this could work is indie development, since that's the scale where developers have authority to sabotage themselves. And sabotage themselves they would - it would be like Fortnite's removal from the App Store except with ~100,000 times less public outcry. You'd go bankrupt before ever inspiring change on the platform.

Nothing about the technology changed, indie developers have long warned users to not give their OEM control over what they can install. But users don't really care, businesses told them the App Store is "safer" before they ever got to see the alternative.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#404

Post by lawrenceyan »

What Andreessen is hinting at, albeit still largely surface level, is 无心 or no mind.

Popular in martial arts and Buddhist philosophy, I think practically what you should take away is that body and mind are fundamentally intertwined.

Introspection is a practice of the mind, specifically cognition centered around portions of the brain like the prefrontal cortex. There’s a lot more to who you are and areas you can hone / cultivate.

The HN crowd is probably overweighted on cognition, and could do with spending more time in other areas: https://www.cheltenhamzen.co.uk/writings/gut-instinct

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#405

Post by guzfip »

rexpop wrote: post #165
pasquinelli wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is so funny for me to read. a few years ago, i would see programmers saying they can negotiate better deals for themselves than a union could. now you're saying it's already over, programming as a skill has a future valuation that's heading to zero. i advise against being so sure of your ideas. maybe you think platform holders have all the cards--test it. if they fight efforts to unionize, that tells a different…

The fatalistic view that "platform holders have all the cards" and that "programming as a skill has a future valuation that's heading to zero" is a common psychological barrier in labor struggles. Oppressed or subordinate groups often suffer from a "diffuse, magical belief in the invulnerability and power of the oppressor"[0]. However, theories of political and social power argue the exact opposite: the power of any…

[dead]

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#406

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

bko wrote: post #401
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people fall ass backwards into money through luck, but that's rare You and I have vastly different mental models of the world. Or, at least, very different definitions of “luck”. For example, I would probably say that anyone who is rich through a “family business” has quite a bit of “luck” to thank (by my definition), except for the founder. And even then, the founder is usually “lucky” by connections (e.g. ge…

So your contention is that it's easy to run a family business and manage immense wealth? I'm going to take a wild guess, but I would bet you never ran a business. I've never heard this from anyone that ran a business. Sure they give you the whole "I am very fortunate and lucky in my life" but never "yes, it's trivial to run a business" And my other bet would be you had never had any extended interaction with a 90 IQ…

> So your contention is that it's easy to run a family business and manage immense wealth?

No, I said except for the founders. Real easy to be the brother or son or aunt to the family business founder and become rich.

> I've never heard this from anyone that ran a business.

I never said “not time consuming” or “stressful”, which I feel like you’re putting those words in my mouth. The first thing I usually hear from (especially braggarts) small business owners is about the biggest contract that they have, which is usually some government contract or bid that they won from Walmart or Amazon. When ZIRP dried up I heard less bragging about such contracts.

> And my other bet would be you had never had any extended interaction with a 90 IQ individual

All four years of my American public high school education. I’m saying the bottom 25% of my high school class might lose generational wealth through poor decisions (90 IQ is roughly 75% of population). I think that’s fair. We are talking about generational wealth, after all. I can think of a few 90 IQ people from my graduating class that are trust fund kids who haven’t managed to lose it all yet.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#407

Post by Henchman21 »

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.

Just because you've been programmed to associate "problematic" with "liberals" and then further trained to think that people who use the word "problematic" are in fact problems, that's on you, the larger zeitgeist you don't see, and the people programming you.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#408

Post by leptons »

asdff wrote: post #289
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…

So you don't think wisdom is a thing that people acquire as they age?

I can tell you from experience that 22 year old people are generally lacking in wisdom. A few of them have a little bit, but overall 22 year olds are just as stupid as teenagers.

Most people don't have much wisdom by age 22. They do have plenty of hubris though.

If we're speaking about mental capabilities, there's nothing that I could do at 22 that I can't do now being over 50. If anything my wisdom gained from experience makes me more valuable and capable now. Everything you learn makes you stronger, and 22 year olds have not learned much by age 22.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#409

Post by ryandrake »

gwerbin wrote: post #363
piker wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Problematic" is just vague. It's not that much more writing to specify the actual problems.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#410

Post by [deleted] »

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"?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN