4 ms·

Interesting this appears in the National Review. I wrote this a couple of months ago: The conservative right has started a grassroots movement to make traditi

Interesting this appears in the National Review. I wrote this a couple of months ago: The conservative right has started a grassroots movement to make traditional measures of intellect and achievement worthy of less distinction. A PhD? Who cares? Nobel Prize in Chemistry? Chemistry isn't that big of a deal, anyone can do it. Plain talkin' people who struggle with things like math and science -- those are the real intellects. Because being an intellect is being someone who can just relate to the every day man. Everything else is just a "hobby" that is no more worthy of distinction than being good at Call of Duty. Over 2011 expect a full court press on this. Academia, scholarship, science, math, etc... will all be attacked as not particularly interesting. Plain spoken populism will be the new metric for brilliance and the best this country has to offer. Peter Thiel is more subtle, but the subtext is there. Fully expect that this debate ends up being very partisan. The conservatives pushing the banner that college is a bubble. Small business is where real America is. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2135539 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2135539

pjscott 16y ago
I think Thiel made it very clear that this isn't about education (as such) and it isn't about the endless mainstream culture wars. It's about figuring out what people should do with their lives, given their particular set of goals. A lot of people take on large student loans and go to college because they feel like they're supposed to, and the debt prevents them from taking financial risk at a time in their lives when it could be the most useful to them. Other people do really well for themselves; one of my friends graduated with an electrical engineering degree, got married, and got a steady job in a nice part of Colorado, and seems to be doing just fine. One-size-fits-all recipes for life tend not to fit very well. People have different desires, different histories, different interests, and different circumstances -- why would we argue that everybody should (or shouldn't) go to college? That just seems so limited, more like political signaling than any serious attempt to improve things. There need to be more options that people take seriously. I'm happy just to see that people are talking about this at all.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  and it isn't about the endless mainstream culture wars Given that this interview takes place in a publication that is largely focused on the mainstream culture wars, you're going to have to do a much better job convincing me. Especially since everything he says in his interview reads like a conservative culture war advocate. He evokes Milton Friedman for heavens sake! I think the fact that you agree with his position, which is fine, may cloud you to why the National Review wants to run an interview with him. And couple this with the fact that I've seen this coming from various people on the right, makes me all the more skeptical. Even the person who posted the story is YummyFajitas - an extremely conservative HN member.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    If I'm reading this right, you seem to be pointing to everything except the literal meaning of his words, whereas I'm taking what he wrote at face value, and ignoring the political context. Would you say that's more or less accurate? I may be naive to be so trusting about the lack of hidden intentions, but as far as I can tell, Peter Thiel is hard to categorize politically and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      No, I'm referring to the literal meaning of his words and the context of the words. I'm not sure how you can escape the context anymore than you can escape the literal meaning of the words. It's the National frickin' Review. That's like getting a newsletter from Emily's List and thinking an interview in there is just about the literal words of the interview. The publication has such an overt agenda that ignoring that agenda is missing a big part of the message. And couple that with the actual text of Thiel's writing makes it obvious. As I noted a couple of months ago this was going to be the centerpiece of the right for 2011 going into 2012. Most of this is partisan, although some is nationalistic. The reason David Brooks, for example, is pushing this new humanism (when did emotional humanism become conservative, right?) is because its clear that is the world flattens the US will likely be in trouble academically/intellectually. As a country we lack discipline, but we do have an abundance of "emotion". In any case Thiel might deserve the benefit of the doubt if he avoided the National Review, but he gave them an interview that would make Jim Demint smile.

pjscott 16y ago

I think Thiel made it very clear that this isn't about education (as such) and it isn't about the endless mainstream culture wars. It's about figuring out what people should do with their lives, given their particular set of goals. A lot of people take on large student loans and go to college because they feel like they're supposed to, and the debt prevents them from taking financial risk at a time in their lives when it could be the most useful to them. Other people do really well for themselves; one of my friends graduated with an electrical engineering degree, got married, and got a steady job in a nice part of Colorado, and seems to be doing just fine. One-size-fits-all recipes for life tend not to fit very well. People have different desires, different histories, different interests, and different circumstances -- why would we argue that everybody should (or shouldn't) go to college? That just seems so limited, more like political signaling than any serious attempt to improve things. There need to be more options that people take seriously. I'm happy just to see that people are talking about this at all.

kenjackson 16y ago
and it isn't about the endless mainstream culture wars Given that this interview takes place in a publication that is largely focused on the mainstream culture wars, you're going to have to do a much better job convincing me. Especially since everything he says in his interview reads like a conservative culture war advocate. He evokes Milton Friedman for heavens sake! I think the fact that you agree with his position, which is fine, may cloud you to why the National Review wants to run an interview with him. And couple this with the fact that I've seen this coming from various people on the right, makes me all the more skeptical. Even the person who posted the story is YummyFajitas - an extremely conservative HN member.
- pjscott 16y ago
  If I'm reading this right, you seem to be pointing to everything except the literal meaning of his words, whereas I'm taking what he wrote at face value, and ignoring the political context. Would you say that's more or less accurate? I may be naive to be so trusting about the lack of hidden intentions, but as far as I can tell, Peter Thiel is hard to categorize politically and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    No, I'm referring to the literal meaning of his words and the context of the words. I'm not sure how you can escape the context anymore than you can escape the literal meaning of the words. It's the National frickin' Review. That's like getting a newsletter from Emily's List and thinking an interview in there is just about the literal words of the interview. The publication has such an overt agenda that ignoring that agenda is missing a big part of the message. And couple that with the actual text of Thiel's writing makes it obvious. As I noted a couple of months ago this was going to be the centerpiece of the right for 2011 going into 2012. Most of this is partisan, although some is nationalistic. The reason David Brooks, for example, is pushing this new humanism (when did emotional humanism become conservative, right?) is because its clear that is the world flattens the US will likely be in trouble academically/intellectually. As a country we lack discipline, but we do have an abundance of "emotion". In any case Thiel might deserve the benefit of the doubt if he avoided the National Review, but he gave them an interview that would make Jim Demint smile.