3 ms·

His essay ends with a long list of recommended authors, labeled "Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism", with the exhortation: "In lieu of detailed endnotes and cita

by gojomo 3y ago

His essay ends with a long list of recommended authors, labeled "Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism", with the exhortation: "In lieu of detailed endnotes and citations, read the work of these people, and you too will become a Techno-Optimist." Plenty of those authors – especially the formal economists – have written extensively on what the state does well & poorly.

bumby 3y ago
But that doesn't imply he (Marc Andreessen) adopts their entire worldview. For example, he lists Adam Smith, but I don't know if he has a nuanced view that includes both the "Theory of Moral Sentiments" Adam Smith or just the more often cited "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith. It doesn't help me understand if he has a nuanced take or succumbs to simple confirmation bias by latching onto the bits that support a simplistic mental model.
- gojomo 3y ago
  If you review the economists, political commentators, & business experts on his list – Adam Smith, Brad DeLong, Clayton Christensen, David Friedman, David Ricardo, Dierdre McCloskey, Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, George Gilder, James Burnham, Joel Mokyr, Johan Norberg, Joseph Schumpeter, Julian Simon, Ludwig von Mises, Martin Gurri, Milton Friedman, Paul Collier, Rose Wilder Lane, Thomas Sowell, Vilfredo Pareto, Virginia Postrel, William Nordhaus – I suspect you'll be able to triangulate Andreesen's views pretty well, modulo a few customizations due to uniquely modern conditions, or the inside view of an venture-capital operator. But really, why insist on a x-ray of the author – "is he nuanced enough in all things?!?" – rather than directly assessing the 5200 words he chose to offer?
  - bumby 3y ago
    >But really, why insist on a x-ray of the author – "is he nuanced enough in all things?!?" – rather than directly assessing the 5200 words he chose to offer? I think I covered this in both previous comments but I’ll try to clarify further. It’s because his 5200 words don’t appear (to me, at least) to portray a nuanced worldview. It comes across as an overly simplistic mental model of “technology, economic growth, and free markets are inherently good. Just see this list of very smart people who agree.” I would like him to elaborate further because, IMO, their real world is far too complex for a simplistic model and I’d like his insight on where he thinks that model hits limitations. Otherwise, his manifesto reads as a bunch of simple platitudes rather than a well thought out philosophy.
    - gojomo 3y ago
      That's what a 'manifesto' is; you gotta dig deeper if you want the subtleties.
      - bumby 3y ago
        First off, I don't think there's anything in the manifesto definition that constrains it to simple statements. I may disagree with the Communist Manifesto or the Unabombers manifesto, but I can acknowledge that they contain more than platitudes. Secondly, even if that were true, it's still reasonable to ask Andreessen to expound on those subtleties rather than essentially point to someone and say "what s/he said." Pointing to a list of names is not only lazy, but it completely skirts around the fact that a list that long is bound to have inconsistencies. It is completely reasonable to ask for clarification in terms of where his personal outlook lands. It's hard to understand that if someone thinks their points are relevant and important enough to be deemed a "manifesto" they would be unwilling to explain them in-depth. Even if I do "dig deeper" into his list of sources it only tells me his sources beliefs, not his own. If they can’t explain them further, it may be an indicator they aren’t very well thought out. To circle back to just one example previously mentioned, in his manifesto, he quotes Smith in terms of the advantages of self-interest. Andreesen espouses the virtues of self-interest, but seemingly makes no mention of the "sympathies" Smith admits are necessary to temper the downsides of selfish behavior where behavior should be "judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted". That feels like a very different takeaway than the way Andreessen quotes Smith in the manifesto. Andreessen actually makes the opposite point, namely that selfish behavior need not address shared humanity. So, when he mentions Adam Smith in his list of "Techno-Optimist" references, am I to assume he only condones the former, more limited (but popular) view of Smith? That would be a seemingly constrained viewpoint of a much more nuanced position. Maybe he has good reason to throw out that more nuanced perspective; only he can say. But a cynic might say he's cherry-picking to conform to his preconceived notions. I.e., one might conclude he's trying to make the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. "Digging deeper" doesn't clarify his own principles; it just muddles them. That's why I'd prefer to hear it from him to elaborate beyond mere platitudes.

by gojomo 3y ago

bumby 3y ago

But that doesn't imply he (Marc Andreessen) adopts their entire worldview. For example, he lists Adam Smith, but I don't know if he has a nuanced view that includes both the "Theory of Moral Sentiments" Adam Smith or just the more often cited "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith. It doesn't help me understand if he has a nuanced take or succumbs to simple confirmation bias by latching onto the bits that support a simplistic mental model.

gojomo 3y ago
If you review the economists, political commentators, & business experts on his list – Adam Smith, Brad DeLong, Clayton Christensen, David Friedman, David Ricardo, Dierdre McCloskey, Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, George Gilder, James Burnham, Joel Mokyr, Johan Norberg, Joseph Schumpeter, Julian Simon, Ludwig von Mises, Martin Gurri, Milton Friedman, Paul Collier, Rose Wilder Lane, Thomas Sowell, Vilfredo Pareto, Virginia Postrel, William Nordhaus – I suspect you'll be able to triangulate Andreesen's views pretty well, modulo a few customizations due to uniquely modern conditions, or the inside view of an venture-capital operator. But really, why insist on a x-ray of the author – "is he nuanced enough in all things?!?" – rather than directly assessing the 5200 words he chose to offer?
- bumby 3y ago
  >But really, why insist on a x-ray of the author – "is he nuanced enough in all things?!?" – rather than directly assessing the 5200 words he chose to offer? I think I covered this in both previous comments but I’ll try to clarify further. It’s because his 5200 words don’t appear (to me, at least) to portray a nuanced worldview. It comes across as an overly simplistic mental model of “technology, economic growth, and free markets are inherently good. Just see this list of very smart people who agree.” I would like him to elaborate further because, IMO, their real world is far too complex for a simplistic model and I’d like his insight on where he thinks that model hits limitations. Otherwise, his manifesto reads as a bunch of simple platitudes rather than a well thought out philosophy.
  - gojomo 3y ago
    That's what a 'manifesto' is; you gotta dig deeper if you want the subtleties.
    - bumby 3y ago
      First off, I don't think there's anything in the manifesto definition that constrains it to simple statements. I may disagree with the Communist Manifesto or the Unabombers manifesto, but I can acknowledge that they contain more than platitudes. Secondly, even if that were true, it's still reasonable to ask Andreessen to expound on those subtleties rather than essentially point to someone and say "what s/he said." Pointing to a list of names is not only lazy, but it completely skirts around the fact that a list that long is bound to have inconsistencies. It is completely reasonable to ask for clarification in terms of where his personal outlook lands. It's hard to understand that if someone thinks their points are relevant and important enough to be deemed a "manifesto" they would be unwilling to explain them in-depth. Even if I do "dig deeper" into his list of sources it only tells me his sources beliefs, not his own. If they can’t explain them further, it may be an indicator they aren’t very well thought out. To circle back to just one example previously mentioned, in his manifesto, he quotes Smith in terms of the advantages of self-interest. Andreesen espouses the virtues of self-interest, but seemingly makes no mention of the "sympathies" Smith admits are necessary to temper the downsides of selfish behavior where behavior should be "judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted". That feels like a very different takeaway than the way Andreessen quotes Smith in the manifesto. Andreessen actually makes the opposite point, namely that selfish behavior need not address shared humanity. So, when he mentions Adam Smith in his list of "Techno-Optimist" references, am I to assume he only condones the former, more limited (but popular) view of Smith? That would be a seemingly constrained viewpoint of a much more nuanced position. Maybe he has good reason to throw out that more nuanced perspective; only he can say. But a cynic might say he's cherry-picking to conform to his preconceived notions. I.e., one might conclude he's trying to make the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. "Digging deeper" doesn't clarify his own principles; it just muddles them. That's why I'd prefer to hear it from him to elaborate beyond mere platitudes.