11 ms·

he got an extremely positive reaction for being proud to be gay in the video. i think obviously it's b.

thedevil 10y ago
It's a little disappointing that it takes so much bravery to disagree in Silicon Valley. Supposed, it's a place of brave ideas and independent thinking. But in reality, there's a giant groupthink going on there. Disclaimer: I don't live in Silicon Valley but I mostly admire it. Also I disagree with Thiel myself though I don't hold it against him.
- internaut 10y ago
  Agreed. The majority of interesting projects to me have been fairly radical with political, social or economic propositions behind them even if that wasn't how they were advertised. All the interesting things seem to happen on the peripheral. Whether the opinion is right or wrong for all time doesn't matter so much as it being divergent from regular thinking. It is not that conventional thinking is bad. It works 99% of the time or it wouldn't exist. The problem with it is the same as with any habit. The population gets into a rut and begins to think there exists One True Way. That's a big part of why I enjoy Less Wrong's Sequences and Slate Star Codex. It's so easy to fall into lazy thinking habits and sometimes the right turn of phrase or analogy can snap you out of it. Examples (perhaps poor, you be the judge): House prices go up. Why? Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before, has that really changed? This is not to say democracy shouldn't exist or house prices should rise, only that we ought to question our priors.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > House prices go up. Why? Supply and demand. > Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? If you had to cannibalize key elements of existing vehicles to make most new cars, cars might not depreciate either. Real property and tangible personal property are different. > What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Perhaps neither. I mean, 0.6% annual population growth vs. -0.2% annual population growth is going to produce a pretty big difference in the housing market, all other things being equal (other things between the UK and Japan obviously are not equal, of course, but that difference alone is going to have an effect on trajectories in the market.) > Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before Iceland (lonest span 930-1430), the Iroquois (since perhaps ~A.D. 1142), and Switzerland (since A.D. 1648) suggest that your "never lasted more than 2 centuries before" is mistaken. And, obviously, these previous long-running examples spent all or much of their existence in their adherence to democratic norms was a notable exception to the surrounding context, one would expect democracies to last longer when it was a more-universal norm.
    - internaut 10y ago
      Very good! We could have a discussion on the subject(s), ranging wide or in-depth. We might even come up with useful corollaries and ways to test the validity of claims. That would be impossible were we to approach those propositions with mainstream thinking and take our assumptions as givens. Probably this is connected to the Royal Society's motto "Take nobody's word for it".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Did he? I thought the crowd was heading towards boos before he followed up with "proud to be republican" and "proud to be american". Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201 https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201

It's a little disappointing that it takes so much bravery to disagree in Silicon Valley. Supposed, it's a place of brave ideas and independent thinking. But in reality, there's a giant groupthink going on there. Disclaimer: I don't live in Silicon Valley but I mostly admire it. Also I disagree with Thiel myself though I don't hold it against him.

internaut 10y ago
Agreed. The majority of interesting projects to me have been fairly radical with political, social or economic propositions behind them even if that wasn't how they were advertised. All the interesting things seem to happen on the peripheral. Whether the opinion is right or wrong for all time doesn't matter so much as it being divergent from regular thinking. It is not that conventional thinking is bad. It works 99% of the time or it wouldn't exist. The problem with it is the same as with any habit. The population gets into a rut and begins to think there exists One True Way. That's a big part of why I enjoy Less Wrong's Sequences and Slate Star Codex. It's so easy to fall into lazy thinking habits and sometimes the right turn of phrase or analogy can snap you out of it. Examples (perhaps poor, you be the judge): House prices go up. Why? Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before, has that really changed? This is not to say democracy shouldn't exist or house prices should rise, only that we ought to question our priors.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > House prices go up. Why? Supply and demand. > Shouldn't they depreciate like cars? If you had to cannibalize key elements of existing vehicles to make most new cars, cars might not depreciate either. Real property and tangible personal property are different. > What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy? Perhaps neither. I mean, 0.6% annual population growth vs. -0.2% annual population growth is going to produce a pretty big difference in the housing market, all other things being equal (other things between the UK and Japan obviously are not equal, of course, but that difference alone is going to have an effect on trajectories in the market.) > Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before Iceland (lonest span 930-1430), the Iroquois (since perhaps ~A.D. 1142), and Switzerland (since A.D. 1648) suggest that your "never lasted more than 2 centuries before" is mistaken. And, obviously, these previous long-running examples spent all or much of their existence in their adherence to democratic norms was a notable exception to the surrounding context, one would expect democracies to last longer when it was a more-universal norm.
  - internaut 10y ago
    Very good! We could have a discussion on the subject(s), ranging wide or in-depth. We might even come up with useful corollaries and ways to test the validity of claims. That would be impossible were we to approach those propositions with mainstream thinking and take our assumptions as givens. Probably this is connected to the Royal Society's motto "Take nobody's word for it".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

Did he? I thought the crowd was heading towards boos before he followed up with "proud to be republican" and "proud to be american". Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201 https://youtu.be/bywahovIbPg?t=201