Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection • Hacker News Board

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#481

Post by gordian-mind » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 1:34 PM UTC

deburo wrote: post #173

gordian-mind wrote: post #155

Weak article. It never really tries to reconstruct what Andreessen meant, just takes a narrow quote, reads it in the least charitable way, and then spends most of its energy tearing down that version with loaded rhetoric. The comments only reinforce that impression: most are some variation of “rich guy, therefore idiot.” This is more pile-on than discussion.

Which makes me curious about what Marc actually meant. The quote itself raises eyebrows. EDIT: From checking in with Claude about his talk. > So the thing he was arguing against was specifically what he sees as a modern therapeutic culture — the expectation that people should examine their motives, feel guilty about their actions, and look backward. He wasn't framing it as a philosophical position so much as a practi…

Yes, the article is deliberately misconstruing that.

The author says outright in her comments that the aim is not to engage with what Marc actually meant, but to chastise him for bad thoughts expressed on Twitter:

“I get where you’re coming from - and I’m not sure I’d disagree with Marc, if that were the point he made. But his hours // days long crash out on Twitter I think made it clear that a lack of introspection was certainly at work…”

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#482

Post by IAmGraydon » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 2:22 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #374

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 believe in some form of the Twitter poisoning theory: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/opinion/trump-musk-kanye-... It seems to explain some of the weirdest of hang ups and strange / desperate choices.

https://archive.is/sSfGI

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#483

Post by b00ty4breakfast » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 2:27 PM UTC

longislandguido wrote: post #444

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This discussion is a sea of jealously and a perfect example. Yes, the only reason anyone could have for criticizing the ultra-wealthy is jealousy. It's just the haders, b.

You eat booty for breakfast?

are you a guido from Long Island?

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#484

Post by IAmGraydon » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

Henchman21 wrote: post #416

duxup wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in some form of the Twitter poisoning theory: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/opinion/trump-musk-kanye-... It seems to explain some of the weirdest of hang ups and strange / desperate choices.

All of what currently ails western society online is likely to be a russian psyop. All of it. We've left ourselves open to direct manipulation.

Not all, but much. Years ago here on HN I said that social media is a weapon more powerful than nuclear fission and we created it and handed it to our enemies in exchange for a small group of people becoming extremely wealthy. I was promptly downvoted.

It’s the closest thing to a mind control device that’s ever been created, and sites like Reddit, Facebook, and even HN openly allow bot traffic in exchange for either dollars or a claim of “open discourse”. HN hates the solution to this problem even more than they hate the problem, so I won’t even start the debate.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#485

Post by skdhfkdjfhsjk » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 3:21 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #343

NegativeK wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly thought I was smarter when I was younger.

Are you saying you haven't felt increased mental fatigue and "slowness" while aging? What is your secret? Certain supplements? Blood boy?

[flagged]

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#486

Post by skdhfkdjfhsjk » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 3:36 PM UTC

moregrist wrote: post #137

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?

When you reach a certain level of wealth and power, it seems like it’s very easy to surround yourself with people who only tell you how brilliant and successful you are. This creates an echo chamber where you don’t get reality checks, and when you do they’re easy to brush off as some form of “sour grapes,” after all if the person telling you that you’re wrong was so great they’d have your level of wealth. I think it…

It doesn't even take that much wealth or power. Look at Vox Day. In my internet wanderings I recently found myself commenting on one of his posts for the completely benign purpose of helping to expand upon his "sigma" theory, as I felt it was incomplete and needed improvement. His followers immediately attacked me, displaying 100% cult-like yes-man behavior. Most responses were essentially, "You disagree? Then you didn't read it carefully enough. Go back and read it again and STFU, loser."

It was really spooky. He's got this self-reinforcing belief system where "people who agree with Vox" are called "sigmas", who are respectable, but "people who disagree with Vox" are defined to be "gammas", who are useless and wrong people who are held in contempt and derision. Some of those guys are really nasty characters.

I tore them all a new asshole, and even Vox seemed to realize on some level that I was right as he didn't really have much of a response.

(Search for the word "flamethrower" in the comments if anyone wants to find that article and read the posts, it's hilarious.)

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#487

Post by skdhfkdjfhsjk » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

spacechild1 wrote: post #148

jjulius wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This whole scenario is just the logical conclusion of American anti-intellectualism. Fawning over wealthy people has been happening for far, far longer than America has been around. This problem is by no means new at all.

What's kind of unique about the US is the way poor or middle-class people idolize the rich. As the saying goes, everyone feels like a temporarily embarrassed millionaires. My parents told me story about their trip to the US. They went on a boat tour in Miami and when the boat passed the homes of some rich people, the tour guide proudly announced the price of each building. The US tourists on the bus applauded! My par…

It's not everyone who is like that here--just certain classes. (For certain definitions of "class.") I laugh in derision at such people and stay as far away from them as possible. The rich people I respect are owners of respectable businesses that they built themselves or competently manage, who live in modest homes out in the boondocks--not the idle rich and bankster puppets with their big prominent homes that they want people to see and admire.

Likewise, the masses of desperately poor people trying to pretend that they are rich are just as despicable. Picture a Cadillac Escalade parked in front of a dilapidated old trailer, or a giant oversized home in an exclusive neighborhood with a garage full of high end cars and other toys, all "paid for" with $1M in debt, $100k on credit cards, and little to no actual equity or net worth. These types are everywhere nowadays, sadly. The coming market crash will wipe many of them out, however. We're in the beginning of that now.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#488

Post by skdhfkdjfhsjk » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #354

volkk wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a fine line between competence and elitism. competence usually has direct measurable impact with ego. elitism is 0 impact, and all ego.

I don’t really know what this is supposed to mean, but it’s pretty vague and content free.

He's saying that you academics create a self-reinforcing belief system in which certain opinions are labelled acceptable or unacceptable largely or solely based on credentialism and their adherence to the preconceptions espoused within your bubble. A giant cult, essentially, that filters out ideas or ways of thinking that do not meet with its approval.

Take for example the derisive opinion of certain snooty academics about the work of Graham Hancock, or those millions of people who do not agree with the "global warming" narrative.

You will learn that academics do not have a monopoly on intelligent thought. There are many brilliant people in the world who largely reject that entire system as being obviously broken and corrupt.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#489

Post by skdhfkdjfhsjk » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:39 PM UTC

bwhiting2356 wrote: post #233

I was reading Martin Luther's wiki article the other day: "Johann von Staupitz, his superior and frustrated confessor, concluded that Luther needed more work to distract him from excessive introspection and ordered him to pursue an academic career" [1] basically he was a moody college student [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Translation: the confessor was frustrated because Mr. Luther would not accept the B.S. he was being told to believe, and he thought a nice rigorous period of brainwashing in academia (controlled also by the Church) was the solution to the young man's "problem."

History of course came to a different conclusion.

Who controls Wikipedia, and why do they want people to think ill about Martin Luther?

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#490

Post by skdhfkdjfhsjk » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #306

theahura wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a few hundred years ago introspection wasn't all that common Marcus Aurelius, Napoleon, Lincoln, the founding fathers, and a long slate of writers and philosophers would like a word

You are again making the same mistake, please try to understand what I'm saying. Atheism was a known concept at least amongst some priestly class in India but that didn't matter - the larger part of the society was not developed enough to understand it. Society only meaningfully changes when a critical mass of people understand and apply a concept - in this case introspection.

I was clearly 'developed enough' to understand atheism at a young age, given that I was a notorious atheist at a Bible Belt school. Not exactly a viewpoint with a lot of popular support in those days.

But then I later realized that there actually is a God. (No, not Lucifer.)

Hopefully you will be 'developed enough' to come to a similar understanding yourself later in life.

Hint: atheism is what came first. Those are the "nephilim" tribes spoken of in the Bible. "In those days there were nephilim." It literally means "people without a belief in God." Religion was a higher level development.