3 ms·
I don't understand Pao's thinking here; she trusted Thiel until he reached a different conclusion from her? If she pointed out a flaw in his methodology, or fou
by nickff 10y ago
I don't understand Pao's thinking here; she trusted Thiel until he reached a different conclusion from her? If she pointed out a flaw in his methodology, or found a heretofore hidden inconsistency in his personal philosophy, I would understand, but she just doesn't like what he's doing.
If you believe in or rely on someone, it shouldn't only be when you happen to agree with them on the issues of the day; this is not how you behave if you trust someone.
- matt4077 10y agoThat argument seems to prove too much, namely that you could never stop listening to an advisor after having listened to them once. I've also found a "hidden" inconsistency in his "philosophy": he claims to be a moral actor, and yet he founded Paypal. And – you know – gives millions to Trump.
- nickff 10y agoYour philosophy does not consist of a few case-specific conclusions; for example, deciding that you want to spend your evening watching a movie alone tells me very little about how much you value interpersonal relationships. I did not say that examining patterns of behavior was useless, but that you shouldn't dismiss people just because you disagree with them. For example, you shouldn't get a divorce just because your significant other gave you a piece of unwanted advice or criticism.