5 ms·

> It’s a technology narcissism problem. BINGO! What a great term. I've never heard it called that before (which now seems hard to believe), but have definitely

> It’s a technology narcissism problem. BINGO! What a great term. I've never heard it called that before (which now seems hard to believe), but have definitely seen it SO many times before (specifically in massive corporate IT programs - the domain I work in as an enterprise architect). Did you coin this phrase? I'm so using this! Thank you.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I doubt I am the first to call it that, but I haven’t seen it elsewhere that I am presently aware of. Having a taxonomy of this bad behavior, with useful names, does seem important, to make identifying it and discussing it more widespread. I imagine young founders not wishing to be like Holmes could benefit from a rubric of sorts that helps classify this behavior. And for bad-faith founders who do want to behave like Holmes just without getting caught, talking more systematically about it would make it harder for them, limit their options. What would be really cool is a modern version of Moral Mazes directed at startups.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Corey Pein’s recent book is a good take down of SV’s narcissistic mythology, and shows how it has some surprising and disturbing roots. There was also a thread here recently about how business culture values those who operate politically far more than it values those who are practical creators - how if you’re skilled at politics you can appear to achieve almost anything, even if you have no true useful skills. Holmes was a kooky idiot scientifically, but a combination of huckster hubris, nrcissistic self-absorption, and political genius - greased by a comfortable upper class background - created a lucrative illusion of Cool Stuff In Progress. She crashed and burned because there was absolutely no substance there. But if there had been some substance - not much, but just enough - she’d still be riding the PR wave and raking in the investor cash. If someone like Holmes can become a billionaire by peddling nothing except lies and hope, what’s the real value of the software and tech industries if you take away the hype and money machines that surround them?
  - Radim 8y ago
    > If someone like Holmes can become a billionaire by peddling nothing except lies and hope, what’s the real value of the software and tech industries if you take away the hype and money machines that surround them? "Real value" is a tricky concept. What is and isn't real? Clearly societies have evolved (and are still evolving) to incorporate "dreams, future potential and hype inertia" into the equation, so anecdotally and tautologically, there's some value in that. Future considerations affect today's reality, so they're "real" in every sense of the word. We don't know what exactly it is that captures the human imagination—a combination of history, ancestral stories, greed, a tangled mess of primal urges—but peddling improbable futures is definitely a well-established evolutionary pattern. Dreams and ideologies are the rudder that helps civilizations steer away from local minima, overcome adversity and plod through suffering. My point is that Holmes is a somewhat extreme example because her confrontation with reality was so head-on, so clearly falsifiable. But if you take away the "hype and money machines" en-masse, I suspect you'll end up with something that isn't human. It's all a house of cards. And it's nonsensical to discuss money, economy and value without humans, these are purely social constructs.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      I think you missed the point of the parent comment. It wasn’t to debate relative value in a philosophical sense. I think it was trying to say that if someone like Holmes (& board members) get rich this way (and it takes such effort to catch what they’re doing and bring actual consequences), then it in turn greatly devalues software labor. Think of it this way: if people think this is a good strategy because it does work for various start-ups and even in this extreme case Holmes made over a billion dollars and it’s yet unclear what punishment, if any, it will be — why would start-ups care about actually building something, actually having engineers who produce things. This company made vast sums of money while not doing any of that. It basically encourages a template for trying to print money with secretive refusal to explain the methods, and engineering hype. Which in turn makes being good at engineering worth far less to these people. The more this looks like a viable option, the less valuable engineering skill is.
      - 8y ago

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

I doubt I am the first to call it that, but I haven’t seen it elsewhere that I am presently aware of. Having a taxonomy of this bad behavior, with useful names, does seem important, to make identifying it and discussing it more widespread. I imagine young founders not wishing to be like Holmes could benefit from a rubric of sorts that helps classify this behavior. And for bad-faith founders who do want to behave like Holmes just without getting caught, talking more systematically about it would make it harder for them, limit their options. What would be really cool is a modern version of Moral Mazes directed at startups.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Corey Pein’s recent book is a good take down of SV’s narcissistic mythology, and shows how it has some surprising and disturbing roots. There was also a thread here recently about how business culture values those who operate politically far more than it values those who are practical creators - how if you’re skilled at politics you can appear to achieve almost anything, even if you have no true useful skills. Holmes was a kooky idiot scientifically, but a combination of huckster hubris, nrcissistic self-absorption, and political genius - greased by a comfortable upper class background - created a lucrative illusion of Cool Stuff In Progress. She crashed and burned because there was absolutely no substance there. But if there had been some substance - not much, but just enough - she’d still be riding the PR wave and raking in the investor cash. If someone like Holmes can become a billionaire by peddling nothing except lies and hope, what’s the real value of the software and tech industries if you take away the hype and money machines that surround them?
- Radim 8y ago
  > If someone like Holmes can become a billionaire by peddling nothing except lies and hope, what’s the real value of the software and tech industries if you take away the hype and money machines that surround them? "Real value" is a tricky concept. What is and isn't real? Clearly societies have evolved (and are still evolving) to incorporate "dreams, future potential and hype inertia" into the equation, so anecdotally and tautologically, there's some value in that. Future considerations affect today's reality, so they're "real" in every sense of the word. We don't know what exactly it is that captures the human imagination—a combination of history, ancestral stories, greed, a tangled mess of primal urges—but peddling improbable futures is definitely a well-established evolutionary pattern. Dreams and ideologies are the rudder that helps civilizations steer away from local minima, overcome adversity and plod through suffering. My point is that Holmes is a somewhat extreme example because her confrontation with reality was so head-on, so clearly falsifiable. But if you take away the "hype and money machines" en-masse, I suspect you'll end up with something that isn't human. It's all a house of cards. And it's nonsensical to discuss money, economy and value without humans, these are purely social constructs.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    I think you missed the point of the parent comment. It wasn’t to debate relative value in a philosophical sense. I think it was trying to say that if someone like Holmes (& board members) get rich this way (and it takes such effort to catch what they’re doing and bring actual consequences), then it in turn greatly devalues software labor. Think of it this way: if people think this is a good strategy because it does work for various start-ups and even in this extreme case Holmes made over a billion dollars and it’s yet unclear what punishment, if any, it will be — why would start-ups care about actually building something, actually having engineers who produce things. This company made vast sums of money while not doing any of that. It basically encourages a template for trying to print money with secretive refusal to explain the methods, and engineering hype. Which in turn makes being good at engineering worth far less to these people. The more this looks like a viable option, the less valuable engineering skill is.
    - 8y ago