6 ms·
To me, he comes off here as completely uninformed about virtually every subject in which he is interviewed. I'm not sure why he'd agree to an interview if he wa
by shaldengeki 10y ago
To me, he comes off here as completely uninformed about virtually every subject in which he is interviewed. I'm not sure why he'd agree to an interview if he wasn't going to do _some_ preparation.
Just look at this trainwreck:
> When I remark that President Obama had eight years without any ethical shadiness, Mr. Thiel flips it, noting: “But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.”
Or this:
> When I ask him if he can explain to Mr. Trump that climate change is not a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, he offers a Chinese box of an answer: “Does he really think that? If he really thinks that, how would you influence that? If he really thinks that and you could influence him, what would be the best way to do it?”
It feels to me like he thinks he's just shooting the shit with a friend, not publishing his views for millions of Americans to read. Can anyone explain this apparent lack of self-awareness?
- blizkreeg 10y agohe's a contrarian. you're never going to get anything that makes sense. it's a way of life.
- ianai 10y agoYes but being contrary for the sake of contrarianism is anarchy. I got the impression he wanted no information to be given out there. I still have no idea what he wants. His reasoning and method of thought, though, lead me to suspect he may want some technological innovations at any cost. Or, he may be incredibly shortsighted about Trump. Or just out for chaos. The contrarian thing may have been a rhetorical tactic to say nothing in an interview, too.
- cderwin 10y agoHe can be entirely and uniformly contrarian throughout his entire life without being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. We have no idea beyond wild guesses why he is contrarian.
- dragonwriter 10y agoBeing contrarian is being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
- cderwin 10y agoNot according to the dictionary (maybe some, but it's clearly not a consensus): http://www.dictionary.com/browse/contrarian http://www.dictionary.com/browse/contrarian
- ianai 10y agoSure we do. Judge the man by his actions. He had this interview and stated contrary views to everything under the sun. Seems like he wants to be mysterious by answering with contradictions.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sportanova 10y agoNo ethical shadiness? Domestic spying, civilian casualties through the drone program, IRS interference in an election against political opponents...
- sean_patel 10y agoAlso mass deportation that earned him the DIC(K) title - Deportation-in-Chief: Source: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595902-expelling-record-numbers-immigrants-costly-way-make-america-less-dynamic-barack-obama http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595902-expelling-rec...
- aceperry 10y agoIs that really shady behavior?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nerdponx 10y agoNot to mention staying silent on the Dakota Access pipeline and continuing the drug war unabated.
- aceperry 10y agoI doubt that qualifies as shady behavior. You might disagree with Obama on that, but it's not an ethical lapse.
- shaldengeki 10y agoOh, I wasn't aware that I was implying that the current administration is without problems. I'm just really surprised at Thiel's answers in this interview.
- sportanova 10y ago
- onewaystreet 10y agoBoth those quotes are opinions. You disagreeing with them doesn't make them uninformed.
- KanyeBest 10y agoNot to mention that most of the quotes are clearly taken out of context. Making any kind of judgment based on them is a shot in the dark.
- shaldengeki 10y agoCan you explain which quotes are taken out of context, and in what context they are best interpreted? I'd love to understand.
- KanyeBest 10y ago“But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.” No journalist would just change topic after hearing this. It's a very controversial and ambiguous statement, and Thiel must have elaborated a great deal on it. But there is no further mention of any of that in the article.
- shaldengeki 10y agoDefinitely an amen to wanting the full transcript of the interview. It does appear that they did a brief rapid-fire response segment and published it in a separate article, though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13378168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13378168 So I think it's contextually possible that they just moved on after Thiel's response.
- djrogers 10y agoThose quotes were preceded by, and intended to emphasize this statement: -- "Mr. Thiel shows, again and again, how he likes to “flip around” issues to see if conventional wisdom is wrong, a technique he calls Pyrrhonian skepticism. “Maybe I do always have this background program running where I’m trying to think of, ‘O.K., what’s the opposite of what you’re saying?’ and then I’ll try that,” he says. “It works surprisingly often.” " -- That clearly provides more context in that Theil was trying to demonstrate his contrarian mindset.
- argonaut 10y agoI dislike his views, but one thing Thiel is most certainly not is misinformed. His interpretations may be completely wrong, but he is not misinformed. I recall an interview of Marc Andreessen where Marc said he had to do a ton of preparation just to stand toe to toe in a debate with Thiel. If you believe that, then look for other explanations for his oddball statements. The contrarian angle seems like the right one - Thiel has lamented in the past that you can't say certain things anymore. He might be saying these things just to provoke a reaction.
- Thriptic 10y agoExpertise is generally pretty narrow. For instance, I heard him speak about bio and pharma about half a year ago and he made several statements that were categorically incorrect and poorly reasoned through.
- cderwin 10y agoThis sounds like evidence that his knowledge is wide, not narrow
- Thriptic 10y agoIt's evidence that he's willing to talk about a wide range of topics, not that he has great knowledge in those areas.
- dragonwriter 10y agoNo, making statements outside of his primary domain that are categorically incorrect isn't a sign of broad knowledge. It may be a sign that he thinks his knowledge is broad when it isn't, but there are other explanations.
- shaldengeki 10y agoThis is what surprises me about the interview. I was under the impression that, given his interest in politics, he was pretty well-informed. But his answers here are consistent with someone who knows very little about the topics he's being asked about, but has a bit of experience arguing with other people ("I'm going to answer your question with another question"). edit: And I'd love to believe the contrarian thing, but when I've seen it done by well-informed people, it's immediately substantive and really thought-provoking, instead of... well, whatever this is. I'd be very interested in reading the interview you mentioned, if you find it at any point!
- intended 10y agoThe second point translates as - if trump believes X, and you believe X is wrong, how would you change that. One of the ways is by being in the inner circle. The issue this misses is that influence is held By many people, and it's not mutually exclusive. To exert influence on trump, you too will end up being influence and modifying your own stances so that it's possible you can apply force. But if your position is to extreme (too far out on an axis) in the end the influence you can exert reduces to naught. For a live example : There's some Chap who has invested large amount of money to explain to republicans what climate change/pollution mean. His position has now Morphed to supporting clean coal, in order to adapt to the environment he is in.