Thiel seems to conflate a valid criticism (he has many) with an invalidation of an idea. His objections and anecdotes are all very instructive. There is nothin

Thiel seems to conflate a valid criticism (he has many) with an invalidation of an idea. His objections and anecdotes are all very instructive. There is nothing wrong with shedding light on the motivations of people and the incentives in play when it comes to any social construct. Some (many) of those things should be changed. It's hard to see where his criticisms sum to any singular great point about something bad that is going on. If you want to be (economically) reductionist, there is nothing wrong with someone else being social maximalist. Is the total social good not better than all the reductionist arguments in sum? Some say yes, some say no. He's smart. Here he's being smart about specific little things. However, I did not finish reading the article with the feeling that Peter Thiel had some greater holistic and informed point of view than any of the people and institutions he is railing against.