4 ms·
What most hackers don't understand is that they do in fact have deep-seated psychological motives for all the things they want to build. I don't know if Sorkin
by andrewljohnson 16y ago
What most hackers don't understand is that they do in fact have deep-seated psychological motives for all the things they want to build.
I don't know if Sorkin's yarn was even close to reality, or whether Zuck's angst at the time was merely coincidental with the development of FaceSmash. But the motivation for building Facebook or anything else is always more complex than "I thought it would be cool."
Hollywood may have missed the point, but they were right to look for one.
- extension 16y agoAny particular idea what his reason might have been? My personal drive to build things feels about as fundamental as anything.
- apl 16y agoI fully agree. Zuckerbergs comment obviously resonates with the startup-happy audience he was and is facing, so the reaction here as well as there doesn't surprise. But I openly doubt that the history of Facebook rests on nothing but the desire to build cool things. The first prototype? Maybe. But he took it further, much further. It's not necessarily what Sorkin decided it should be. However, I'm willing to bet money that other factors did play a role. For evidence, just remember that there were lawsuits, that there was drama, that significant amounts of money traded hands before everything became harmonious. Plus, the narration at the beginning of the movie? That is Zuckerberg.
- borism 16y agoI'm pretty sure even the first prototype had much deeper psychological meaning than what's being presented. Heck, I was in a college at the time too and I think I know fairly well why so many guys tried to do their versions of "face book". "We just like to build things" excuse sounded so lame it's unbelievable it came from a person who supposedly studied psychology.
- runT1ME 16y agoSo, you too don't understand the desire just to build things?
- aamar 16y agoAgreed; maybe the point is that Hollywood seems disproportionately interested in explaining the urge to create (especially when the ambitions are grand) as sublimated need for intimacy. This may be in part because Citizen Kane casts a long shadow on Hollywood film, e.g. over The Social Network & There Will Be Blood. I do appreciate the rarer films where ambition seems substantially driven by a person's interest in problems, tools, and intrinsic desire to create or innovate: e.g. The Fountainhead (better than the book), Ratatouille.