8 ms·

We all know he’s wrong. The problem isn’t that he is wrong, it’s that we have elevated the wealthy into a status where they can be wrong, have no correction, an

We all know he’s wrong. The problem isn’t that he is wrong, it’s that we have elevated the wealthy into a status where they can be wrong, have no correction, and make decisions whole clothe which negatively affect the rest of us. All while being insulated from their negative world view.

a456463 6mo ago
Yes. I mean calling them out and people take personal offense as if they are receiving handouts from them or they are that rich. They don't give a damn about anyone or anything for that matter
tcbawo 6mo ago
We now live in a courtier world where flattery and politics determine successful outcomes.
- quantummagic 6mo ago
  Yes we do. We always did, and we still do.
- Arubis 6mo ago
  That has been the case for a vast swathe of time across history. It hurts because we had a nice couple of decades where it seemed that, not only was this not the case, but that we were directionally accelerating away from it.
gassi 6mo ago
I've taken the position that anything the ultra-wealthy say is likely wrong, and every decision they take will negatively affect society, unless and until its corroborated by an unbiased source with expertise in the subject matter.
- threetonesun 6mo ago
  This is an SNL skit from 1996 that has always been my framing for how many-million/billionaires think, Tiny Camels through Giant Needles: https://www.reddit.com/r/RebelChristianity/comments/113xslu/billionaire_shrinks_camels_so_theyll_fit_through/ https://www.reddit.com/r/RebelChristianity/comments/113xslu/...
  - cwillu 6mo ago
    The inflection on his voice…
- bluGill 6mo ago
  The ultra-wealthy are no different from anyone else. However the effects of their decisions - both good and bad - tend to be much larger than what most of us can do.
  - Arubis 6mo ago
    I invite you to expand on your blanket statement. I posit that the ultra-wealthy are necessarily and unavoidably transformed by the lived experience of having that level of wealth: virtually any logistical inconvenience you and I currently relate to can be monied away; the proportion of strangers and near-strangers that want to interact with you deferentially and transactionally jumps; the consequences for many of your mistakes become invisible to you. edit: I don't mean just to shoot you down here--I think there's a counterargument to be made here. It might start with "those folks really are the same as us, responding and acting as we ourselves would when dropped into that environment and surroundings". That would hinge on observing the actions and behaviors of someone who, having lived a life as a billionaire, has lost or forsworn that level of fortune and whose lives we might now judge as in the range of "normal". I think that'll be hard to find; the wealthy making public pledges to give away 99% of their wealth are still ludicrously wealthy, and to my knowledge all make that commitment to do so around when they die--not before.
  - coldtea 6mo ago
    >The ultra-wealthy are no different from anyone else The ultra wealthy are very different from anyone else. First of all, their focus gets to be about power, everyone else's is survival and making the rent. Second they have armies of ass kissers. Third, they have no job and can even own politicians. And of course their wealth isolates them from repercursions anyone else would face, and puts their experience way out of phase with the regular people. And we should also account for the sociopathic drive that made them rich in the first place (sociopaths are overrepresented in higher status positions).
  - johannes1234321 6mo ago
    Yes, they are different: People who care about others are less likely to become ultra rich. You become ultra rich by mostly caring about your cut and your profits. While there are exceptions with people who were lucky and were at the right spot at the right time, there is a different distribution of character traits compared to society at large.
- spamizbad 6mo ago
  I think the ultra-wealthy are just operating under what they think they need to tell people in order to get the outcomes they want. You're only going to hear the truth - or something correct - if its to their benefit.
  - rybosworld 6mo ago
    I used to think this but I think that's only true for the low-profile wealthy folks. And they voice their opinion indirectly, like through owning media companies. The people that feel the need to be loud and in the public eye aren't necessarily playing 4d chess. It's really just an ego thing for them. The wealthy who keep a low-profile are the smarter one's.
    - steveBK123 6mo ago
      Yes, deciding to be famous AFTER becoming rich is a choice, and arguably not optimally intelligent. Many in these positions get there by being really good/smart/lucky at something once and then having a war chest of capital to deploy for life. It doesn't mean they are a polymath genius with unique worthwhile insights into all facets of the human experience. In fact, it may almost be the opposite. The hyper focus and hustle required to attain what they do often requires withdrawing from the wider world, not being particularly well read, and living in a socioeconomic/political/work bubble.
bigyabai 6mo ago
Marc "Invest in Crypto" Andreessen can't afford self-reflection? Color me surprised.
- pstuart 6mo ago
  Not just crypto in the "ride the lightning that is bitcoin" but NFTs. FFS, that takes some serious lack of introspection as to assign any value to those things other than laundering money and duping the public.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo 6mo ago
[flagged]
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  > Step one is that all of us blue collar technologists need to get organized So that Apple and Google can discriminate against us as a bloc, instead of individually? As a programmer I struggle to see how organization would achieve anything. We hold no cards, it's the platform holders who won.
  - vrganj 6mo ago
    Who builds and maintains the platforms? Labor is entitled to all it creates.
    - bigyabai 6mo ago
      Greedy, unprincipled sycophants? Google and Microsoft employees already tolerate terrible software and immoral contract deals. It's not like you can count on them growing a conscience over working for an evil company.
      - AndrewKemendo 6mo ago
        That’s correct and the percentage of those people seems to be going down but hey maybe I’m totally wrong and the number of synchophants and boot lickers who work in tech is going up
  - bayarearefugee 6mo ago
    Organizing years ago would have been huge for software developers but unfortunately I do think it is too late now, given the onset of AI (weakens the collective by improving individual productivity since not every developer will be onboard) and just the current political landscape. The NLRB has been gutted.
    - 6mo ago
mc32 6mo ago
And lots of wealthy people like hanging out at Davos giving policymakers bad ideas…
- kevinsync 6mo ago
  They should be forced to stay at a Holiday Inn Express and meet at a Detroit Denny's to discuss the future of the world. Maybe get some perspective in the process!
holistio 6mo ago
To quote the right honourable sire Elon of the Musk house: "True".
foobiekr 6mo ago
The reason he and Musk are anti-introspection is that when they do it, it hurts. Because they are terrible people. Better to just not think about it.
- tombert 6mo ago
  It says a lot that he thinks that empathy is the greatest human weakness. One of many, many, many stupid things he's said.
  - vrganj 6mo ago
    Not just stupid, sociopathic. Definitionally.
    - caaqil 6mo ago
      You don't generally reach that level of wealth and success without at least having strong sociopathic (maybe even psychopathic) tendencies.
      - jjtheblunt 6mo ago
        that's a stretch: andreessen got wealthy because he worked for the UIUC group in a project which turned out super popular, super funded by Jim Clark, and got massive explosion in worth. there's no sociopathy involved from him back then. Musk made a company that jumpstarted some wealth and invested in other things which exploded. Toto Wolff is a gazillionaire because he too made some pretty incredibly timed investments. point is, extreme wealth results from some combination of work, timing luck, strategy, and sociopathy, but they're not all required to span the space of wealthy people.
        vrganj 6mo ago
        You might get incredibly lucky and bexome a billionaire without being a sociopath. There's no way to stay a billionaire without being one, as long as there's abject poverty and suffering.
frereubu 6mo ago
The penultimate sentence of this fantastic 1997 interview with Trump has stayed with me since I read it: "Trump, who had aspired to and achieved the ultimate luxury, an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul." https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/05/19/trump-solo https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/05/19/trump-solo
- abdelhousni 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jacquesm 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - leptons 6mo ago
      His enacting of tariffs could be considered "molesting money", and that is affecting practically everyone in the world right now.
thedima 6mo ago
I really like the way you put it: “It’s okay to be wrong. We’re all wrong from time to time. What’s not okay is not having a way to be corrected by the outside world for a specific reason: being at the top of the political pyramid, being ultra-wealthy and surrounded by flattery, etc"
- quantummagic 6mo ago
  You're right, but we've never devised any system that prevents this from happening. Every single organization leads to a concentration of wealth and power. And even those ideally conceived to have counterbalancing forces, eventually are corrupted and subverted. It seems to be the steady state of reality.
  - ozgrakkurt 6mo ago
    Maybe wealth should be reset every time? There shouldn't be inheritence at all?
    - quantummagic 6mo ago
      It's a lovely idea, but that system will have to be enforced by a power structure... which will always tend to grant itself special privileges. And even before such corruption, without inherited wealth, there will still be entrenched institutions that control resources, and have a continuity of leadership, that will always be looking out for themselves and their in-group. It's just natural.
    - pixl97 6mo ago
      Define wealth in an exact manner. Because rich people have both the power and motivation to define it in a manner in which they still win. Wealth can be education. Wealth can be contacts. Wealth can be properties. Wealth can be businesses. Wealth can be in other countries.
  - TFYS 6mo ago
    This will be the reality until we come up with a way to make good decisions using direct democracy, and make that decision-making process so fast and easy that it can be used for any kind of group decision. Concentration of power stems from our inability to make good decisions as a group of equals. We have to choose someone to make decisions for the group because there is currently no other working way to make them. Current technology might enable us to find some form of true democracy, but I'm not sure if anyone is looking for it.
SecretDreams 6mo ago
A salient comment on the current times. But I'll extend it beyond just wealthy people. We have given every soul a platform. At first glance, that seems like a good thing. But we've given everyone a platform where they can accumulate large followings and express a great many opinions completely unchallenged. In reality, we've built force multiplier tools that enable the dissemination of all takes, good and bad, at a rather alarming rate. And, I would argue, the average joe is a bit gullible and easy to indoctrinate. Society, largely speaking, does not receive enough education and protections against these types of indoctrination platforms that we've made. That celebrities, ultra wealthy individuals, bad actors, and random dumbasses can all use and abuse to sell some physical or cognitive junk.
- aworks 6mo ago
  Is this a difference in kind versus say the printing press and books? That technology gave some souls a platform. Then and now, having a platform isn't the same as having an effective and popular platform for force indoctrination...
  - SecretDreams 6mo ago
    I think it's the velocity by which you can disseminate that makes it different and more dangerous.
WickyNilliams 6mo ago
Not just elevated them, but effectively given them a free pass for anything they do. Musk slanders a cave diver trying to rescue trapped children as a paedo? No problem! The courts said it's fine. It's just a joke bro, you should be laughing. Andreeson frontruns pump and dump shitcoins on retail investors via coinbase et al? Don't worry about it! Conning and scamming is fine now. The dog either eats or gets eaten. We are far too kind to people being visibily obnoxious people because they are rich.
rybosworld 6mo ago
Tim Dillon said summarized it pretty well - can't remember or find the exact quote. Something to the effect of: "Look around at all these things I have - how could I be wrong when I have so much?" And that's how you get the Andreessen's and Musk's of the world stating these nonsensical things as truth. In their minds, financial success is the ultimate yardstick. The fact that they have so much wealth is a testament that their way of thinking is always right. You don't need to look very hard to see this is what they really believe. Elon has done extremely silly things like claiming he was the best Path of Exile player in the world because he paid several people grind his account to a high-level. Having enough money to pay someone to play the game for you, is the same as being good at the game, in his mind.
- jasondigitized 6mo ago
  [dead]
- coldtea 6mo ago
  Also doesn't help that wealth means they can own newspapers or social media to promote their shitty takes as gospel, and have armies of regular Joe fanbois, that kiss their ass and tell us how wise they are...
- visarga 6mo ago
  > In their minds, financial success is the ultimate yardstick. In a loopy recursive way, it is. Cost gates what we can do and become. Paying back your costs to extend your runway is the working principle behind biology, economy and technology. I am not saying rich people are always right, just that cost is not so irrelevant to everything else. I personally think cost satisfaction explains multiple levels, from biology up. Related to introspection - it certainly has a cost for doing it, and a cost for not doing it. Going happy go lucky is not necessarily optimal, experience was expensive to gain, not using it at all is a big loss. Being paralyzed by rumination is also not optimal, we have to act in time, we can't delay and if we do, it comes out differently.
  - mayneack 6mo ago
biophysboy 6mo ago
Tech still broadly respects edgy, hot take contrarianism, even if they think Andreessen is stupid in this instance.
bko 6mo ago
You're correcting him by commenting on a popular article arguing he's wrong. So it appears he has been "corrected" rather broadly and vocally He's free to choose what to believe. He's not "insulated from his negative world view". If you're correct and introspection is to his benefit and he chooses to forgo it, it's his loss. So I don't know what you're upset about. I think his broader point is that people are too introspective in modern times and its paralyzing. For instance, I remember reading a blog that argues that argues PTSD doesn't exist historically. People saw terrible things, buried their children and suffered unimaginable pain but there were no concept of PTSD. He argues that its not because it was taboo (virtually every other topic that was taboo was extensively documented), so perhaps there was less introspection. https://acoup.blog/2020/04/24/fireside-friday-april-24-2020/ https://acoup.blog/2020/04/24/fireside-friday-april-24-2020/
- TheCoelacanth 6mo ago
  You are completely misconstruing his argument. It has nothing to do with lack of introspection. It is that war was ubiquitous and accepted as a positive thing in society, unlike now where it is viewed as at best a necessary evil.
  - bko 6mo ago
    It's not just war. Take infant deaths. Absolutely devastating today, but a large percent of people went through that in the past. They even re-used the names of their dead children.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6mo ago
To put it another way, the problem is not what this idiot is saying on some podcast, the problem is that people are listening to it. For example, in the case of this blogger, listening and then taking the time to publish a web page about what was said, hoping to make money from readers
__MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
Immense wealth or power should be difficult to hold on to. Until our policymakers understand that we'll have to occasionally resort to the Luigi method.
toss1 6mo ago
YUP He is wrong about almost everything, and especially about introspection. But he got lucky and wrote a good-enough-for-the-time browser at just the right time. Now, he mistakes his luck and his F_U_Money for skill and intelligence. And why wouldn't he? He can simply walk away from any situation that makes it seem he is wrong. And the broader problem in society is nearly the entire populace has been conditioned to ignore the factors of luck and mistake monetary success with hard work and wisdom, when in fact those people are often no more than massively amplified fools. The massive follies of most these current robber barons makes the case for taxing them out of existence. Once someone has enough money that they and their family cannot spend it in multiple lifetimes of excessive luxury, the only reason to have more is power. We should ramp up tax rates so those people cannot accumulate that power. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. A society that fails to manage that fact of human nature dooms itself.
bawolff 6mo ago
> it’s that we have elevated the wealthy into a status where they can be wrong, have no correction, If a poor person had the same view, would anything different happen? I suppose nobody would pay attention. People having nutty views is a fact of life. Its not related to wealth. It happens among all classes.
goldylochness 6mo ago
and what do you think his punishment should be?
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  Having to pay taxes? Enough of this consequence-free bullshit is what gets you a French Revolution, and that's good for no one.
geodel 6mo ago
I think you have put this in a correct, concise manner which I agree with entirely. The smaller version of same phenomena I see in enterprises where musings of non/barely technical leadership of a tech org is not only considered as go-to strategy but also why previous plans and implementations which were so obviously crappy not totally replaced yet.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
larodi 6mo ago
I have not elevated this person, and very much despise much of what he does and says. For the record.
cyanydeez 6mo ago
We've entered the "Emperor has no Clothes; but if I just prend he does, I'll be elevated higher than anyone who says otherwise" or "Lets all try to keep ourselves out of the permanent underclass"
dang 6mo ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- John23832 6mo ago
  How is this flame bait when it specifically addresses both the title and the content of the article? The article itself is a list of prior art of introspection and a critique of Marc’s lack of awareness of said art.
  - bluecheese452 6mo ago
    It is a criticism of a right leaning figure. Same rules apply as when the queen died. Free discussion is allowed as long as it is not criticism.
    - dang 6mo ago
      The point would be the same if the figure leaned otherwise, but (again, understandably) people only remember the cases that happened to strike them unpleasantly.
      - bluecheese452 6mo ago
        If you really believe that you are deceiving yourself.
        deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
  - dang 6mo ago
    It was a generic flamewar tangent: it takes the hottest points of indignation (richness, wrongness) to a such a level of generality that nothing concrete can be said. This doesn't overlap with curious conversation, and HN is supposed to be for the latter. It's admittedly hard to remain in curious conversation about things that are so activating, so it's quite understandable that people do it.

a456463 6mo ago

Yes. I mean calling them out and people take personal offense as if they are receiving handouts from them or they are that rich. They don't give a damn about anyone or anything for that matter

tcbawo 6mo ago

We now live in a courtier world where flattery and politics determine successful outcomes.

quantummagic 6mo ago
Yes we do. We always did, and we still do.
Arubis 6mo ago
That has been the case for a vast swathe of time across history. It hurts because we had a nice couple of decades where it seemed that, not only was this not the case, but that we were directionally accelerating away from it.

gassi 6mo ago

I've taken the position that anything the ultra-wealthy say is likely wrong, and every decision they take will negatively affect society, unless and until its corroborated by an unbiased source with expertise in the subject matter.

threetonesun 6mo ago
This is an SNL skit from 1996 that has always been my framing for how many-million/billionaires think, Tiny Camels through Giant Needles: https://www.reddit.com/r/RebelChristianity/comments/113xslu/billionaire_shrinks_camels_so_theyll_fit_through/ https://www.reddit.com/r/RebelChristianity/comments/113xslu/...
- cwillu 6mo ago
  The inflection on his voice…
bluGill 6mo ago
The ultra-wealthy are no different from anyone else. However the effects of their decisions - both good and bad - tend to be much larger than what most of us can do.
- Arubis 6mo ago
  I invite you to expand on your blanket statement. I posit that the ultra-wealthy are necessarily and unavoidably transformed by the lived experience of having that level of wealth: virtually any logistical inconvenience you and I currently relate to can be monied away; the proportion of strangers and near-strangers that want to interact with you deferentially and transactionally jumps; the consequences for many of your mistakes become invisible to you. edit: I don't mean just to shoot you down here--I think there's a counterargument to be made here. It might start with "those folks really are the same as us, responding and acting as we ourselves would when dropped into that environment and surroundings". That would hinge on observing the actions and behaviors of someone who, having lived a life as a billionaire, has lost or forsworn that level of fortune and whose lives we might now judge as in the range of "normal". I think that'll be hard to find; the wealthy making public pledges to give away 99% of their wealth are still ludicrously wealthy, and to my knowledge all make that commitment to do so around when they die--not before.
- coldtea 6mo ago
  >The ultra-wealthy are no different from anyone else The ultra wealthy are very different from anyone else. First of all, their focus gets to be about power, everyone else's is survival and making the rent. Second they have armies of ass kissers. Third, they have no job and can even own politicians. And of course their wealth isolates them from repercursions anyone else would face, and puts their experience way out of phase with the regular people. And we should also account for the sociopathic drive that made them rich in the first place (sociopaths are overrepresented in higher status positions).
- johannes1234321 6mo ago
  Yes, they are different: People who care about others are less likely to become ultra rich. You become ultra rich by mostly caring about your cut and your profits. While there are exceptions with people who were lucky and were at the right spot at the right time, there is a different distribution of character traits compared to society at large.
spamizbad 6mo ago
I think the ultra-wealthy are just operating under what they think they need to tell people in order to get the outcomes they want. You're only going to hear the truth - or something correct - if its to their benefit.
- rybosworld 6mo ago
  I used to think this but I think that's only true for the low-profile wealthy folks. And they voice their opinion indirectly, like through owning media companies. The people that feel the need to be loud and in the public eye aren't necessarily playing 4d chess. It's really just an ego thing for them. The wealthy who keep a low-profile are the smarter one's.
  - steveBK123 6mo ago
    Yes, deciding to be famous AFTER becoming rich is a choice, and arguably not optimally intelligent. Many in these positions get there by being really good/smart/lucky at something once and then having a war chest of capital to deploy for life. It doesn't mean they are a polymath genius with unique worthwhile insights into all facets of the human experience. In fact, it may almost be the opposite. The hyper focus and hustle required to attain what they do often requires withdrawing from the wider world, not being particularly well read, and living in a socioeconomic/political/work bubble.

bigyabai 6mo ago

Marc "Invest in Crypto" Andreessen can't afford self-reflection? Color me surprised.

pstuart 6mo ago
Not just crypto in the "ride the lightning that is bitcoin" but NFTs. FFS, that takes some serious lack of introspection as to assign any value to those things other than laundering money and duping the public.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

AndrewKemendo 6mo ago

[flagged]

bigyabai 6mo ago
> Step one is that all of us blue collar technologists need to get organized So that Apple and Google can discriminate against us as a bloc, instead of individually? As a programmer I struggle to see how organization would achieve anything. We hold no cards, it's the platform holders who won.
- vrganj 6mo ago
  Who builds and maintains the platforms? Labor is entitled to all it creates.
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    Greedy, unprincipled sycophants? Google and Microsoft employees already tolerate terrible software and immoral contract deals. It's not like you can count on them growing a conscience over working for an evil company.
    - AndrewKemendo 6mo ago
      That’s correct and the percentage of those people seems to be going down but hey maybe I’m totally wrong and the number of synchophants and boot lickers who work in tech is going up
- bayarearefugee 6mo ago
  Organizing years ago would have been huge for software developers but unfortunately I do think it is too late now, given the onset of AI (weakens the collective by improving individual productivity since not every developer will be onboard) and just the current political landscape. The NLRB has been gutted.
  - 6mo ago

mc32 6mo ago

And lots of wealthy people like hanging out at Davos giving policymakers bad ideas…

kevinsync 6mo ago
They should be forced to stay at a Holiday Inn Express and meet at a Detroit Denny's to discuss the future of the world. Maybe get some perspective in the process!

holistio 6mo ago

To quote the right honourable sire Elon of the Musk house: "True".

foobiekr 6mo ago

The reason he and Musk are anti-introspection is that when they do it, it hurts. Because they are terrible people. Better to just not think about it.

tombert 6mo ago
It says a lot that he thinks that empathy is the greatest human weakness. One of many, many, many stupid things he's said.
- vrganj 6mo ago
  Not just stupid, sociopathic. Definitionally.
  - caaqil 6mo ago
    You don't generally reach that level of wealth and success without at least having strong sociopathic (maybe even psychopathic) tendencies.
    - jjtheblunt 6mo ago
      that's a stretch: andreessen got wealthy because he worked for the UIUC group in a project which turned out super popular, super funded by Jim Clark, and got massive explosion in worth. there's no sociopathy involved from him back then. Musk made a company that jumpstarted some wealth and invested in other things which exploded. Toto Wolff is a gazillionaire because he too made some pretty incredibly timed investments. point is, extreme wealth results from some combination of work, timing luck, strategy, and sociopathy, but they're not all required to span the space of wealthy people.
      - vrganj 6mo ago
        You might get incredibly lucky and bexome a billionaire without being a sociopath. There's no way to stay a billionaire without being one, as long as there's abject poverty and suffering.

frereubu 6mo ago

The penultimate sentence of this fantastic 1997 interview with Trump has stayed with me since I read it: "Trump, who had aspired to and achieved the ultimate luxury, an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul." https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/05/19/trump-solo https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/05/19/trump-solo

abdelhousni 6mo ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - leptons 6mo ago
    His enacting of tariffs could be considered "molesting money", and that is affecting practically everyone in the world right now.

thedima 6mo ago

I really like the way you put it: “It’s okay to be wrong. We’re all wrong from time to time. What’s not okay is not having a way to be corrected by the outside world for a specific reason: being at the top of the political pyramid, being ultra-wealthy and surrounded by flattery, etc"

quantummagic 6mo ago
You're right, but we've never devised any system that prevents this from happening. Every single organization leads to a concentration of wealth and power. And even those ideally conceived to have counterbalancing forces, eventually are corrupted and subverted. It seems to be the steady state of reality.
- ozgrakkurt 6mo ago
  Maybe wealth should be reset every time? There shouldn't be inheritence at all?
  - quantummagic 6mo ago
    It's a lovely idea, but that system will have to be enforced by a power structure... which will always tend to grant itself special privileges. And even before such corruption, without inherited wealth, there will still be entrenched institutions that control resources, and have a continuity of leadership, that will always be looking out for themselves and their in-group. It's just natural.
  - pixl97 6mo ago
    Define wealth in an exact manner. Because rich people have both the power and motivation to define it in a manner in which they still win. Wealth can be education. Wealth can be contacts. Wealth can be properties. Wealth can be businesses. Wealth can be in other countries.
- TFYS 6mo ago
  This will be the reality until we come up with a way to make good decisions using direct democracy, and make that decision-making process so fast and easy that it can be used for any kind of group decision. Concentration of power stems from our inability to make good decisions as a group of equals. We have to choose someone to make decisions for the group because there is currently no other working way to make them. Current technology might enable us to find some form of true democracy, but I'm not sure if anyone is looking for it.

SecretDreams 6mo ago

A salient comment on the current times. But I'll extend it beyond just wealthy people. We have given every soul a platform. At first glance, that seems like a good thing. But we've given everyone a platform where they can accumulate large followings and express a great many opinions completely unchallenged. In reality, we've built force multiplier tools that enable the dissemination of all takes, good and bad, at a rather alarming rate. And, I would argue, the average joe is a bit gullible and easy to indoctrinate. Society, largely speaking, does not receive enough education and protections against these types of indoctrination platforms that we've made. That celebrities, ultra wealthy individuals, bad actors, and random dumbasses can all use and abuse to sell some physical or cognitive junk.

aworks 6mo ago
Is this a difference in kind versus say the printing press and books? That technology gave some souls a platform. Then and now, having a platform isn't the same as having an effective and popular platform for force indoctrination...
- SecretDreams 6mo ago
  I think it's the velocity by which you can disseminate that makes it different and more dangerous.

WickyNilliams 6mo ago

Not just elevated them, but effectively given them a free pass for anything they do. Musk slanders a cave diver trying to rescue trapped children as a paedo? No problem! The courts said it's fine. It's just a joke bro, you should be laughing. Andreeson frontruns pump and dump shitcoins on retail investors via coinbase et al? Don't worry about it! Conning and scamming is fine now. The dog either eats or gets eaten. We are far too kind to people being visibily obnoxious people because they are rich.

rybosworld 6mo ago

Tim Dillon said summarized it pretty well - can't remember or find the exact quote. Something to the effect of: "Look around at all these things I have - how could I be wrong when I have so much?" And that's how you get the Andreessen's and Musk's of the world stating these nonsensical things as truth. In their minds, financial success is the ultimate yardstick. The fact that they have so much wealth is a testament that their way of thinking is always right. You don't need to look very hard to see this is what they really believe. Elon has done extremely silly things like claiming he was the best Path of Exile player in the world because he paid several people grind his account to a high-level. Having enough money to pay someone to play the game for you, is the same as being good at the game, in his mind.

jasondigitized 6mo ago
[dead]
coldtea 6mo ago
Also doesn't help that wealth means they can own newspapers or social media to promote their shitty takes as gospel, and have armies of regular Joe fanbois, that kiss their ass and tell us how wise they are...
visarga 6mo ago
> In their minds, financial success is the ultimate yardstick. In a loopy recursive way, it is. Cost gates what we can do and become. Paying back your costs to extend your runway is the working principle behind biology, economy and technology. I am not saying rich people are always right, just that cost is not so irrelevant to everything else. I personally think cost satisfaction explains multiple levels, from biology up. Related to introspection - it certainly has a cost for doing it, and a cost for not doing it. Going happy go lucky is not necessarily optimal, experience was expensive to gain, not using it at all is a big loss. Being paralyzed by rumination is also not optimal, we have to act in time, we can't delay and if we do, it comes out differently.
- mayneack 6mo ago

biophysboy 6mo ago

Tech still broadly respects edgy, hot take contrarianism, even if they think Andreessen is stupid in this instance.

bko 6mo ago

You're correcting him by commenting on a popular article arguing he's wrong. So it appears he has been "corrected" rather broadly and vocally He's free to choose what to believe. He's not "insulated from his negative world view". If you're correct and introspection is to his benefit and he chooses to forgo it, it's his loss. So I don't know what you're upset about. I think his broader point is that people are too introspective in modern times and its paralyzing. For instance, I remember reading a blog that argues that argues PTSD doesn't exist historically. People saw terrible things, buried their children and suffered unimaginable pain but there were no concept of PTSD. He argues that its not because it was taboo (virtually every other topic that was taboo was extensively documented), so perhaps there was less introspection. https://acoup.blog/2020/04/24/fireside-friday-april-24-2020/ https://acoup.blog/2020/04/24/fireside-friday-april-24-2020/

TheCoelacanth 6mo ago
You are completely misconstruing his argument. It has nothing to do with lack of introspection. It is that war was ubiquitous and accepted as a positive thing in society, unlike now where it is viewed as at best a necessary evil.
- bko 6mo ago
  It's not just war. Take infant deaths. Absolutely devastating today, but a large percent of people went through that in the past. They even re-used the names of their dead children.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6mo ago

To put it another way, the problem is not what this idiot is saying on some podcast, the problem is that people are listening to it. For example, in the case of this blogger, listening and then taking the time to publish a web page about what was said, hoping to make money from readers

__MatrixMan__ 6mo ago

Immense wealth or power should be difficult to hold on to. Until our policymakers understand that we'll have to occasionally resort to the Luigi method.

toss1 6mo ago

YUP He is wrong about almost everything, and especially about introspection. But he got lucky and wrote a good-enough-for-the-time browser at just the right time. Now, he mistakes his luck and his F_U_Money for skill and intelligence. And why wouldn't he? He can simply walk away from any situation that makes it seem he is wrong. And the broader problem in society is nearly the entire populace has been conditioned to ignore the factors of luck and mistake monetary success with hard work and wisdom, when in fact those people are often no more than massively amplified fools. The massive follies of most these current robber barons makes the case for taxing them out of existence. Once someone has enough money that they and their family cannot spend it in multiple lifetimes of excessive luxury, the only reason to have more is power. We should ramp up tax rates so those people cannot accumulate that power. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. A society that fails to manage that fact of human nature dooms itself.

bawolff 6mo ago

> it’s that we have elevated the wealthy into a status where they can be wrong, have no correction, If a poor person had the same view, would anything different happen? I suppose nobody would pay attention. People having nutty views is a fact of life. Its not related to wealth. It happens among all classes.

goldylochness 6mo ago

and what do you think his punishment should be?

ceejayoz 6mo ago
Having to pay taxes? Enough of this consequence-free bullshit is what gets you a French Revolution, and that's good for no one.

geodel 6mo ago

I think you have put this in a correct, concise manner which I agree with entirely. The smaller version of same phenomena I see in enterprises where musings of non/barely technical leadership of a tech org is not only considered as go-to strategy but also why previous plans and implementations which were so obviously crappy not totally replaced yet.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

larodi 6mo ago

I have not elevated this person, and very much despise much of what he does and says. For the record.

cyanydeez 6mo ago

We've entered the "Emperor has no Clothes; but if I just prend he does, I'll be elevated higher than anyone who says otherwise" or "Lets all try to keep ourselves out of the permanent underclass"

dang 6mo ago

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

John23832 6mo ago
How is this flame bait when it specifically addresses both the title and the content of the article? The article itself is a list of prior art of introspection and a critique of Marc’s lack of awareness of said art.
- bluecheese452 6mo ago
  It is a criticism of a right leaning figure. Same rules apply as when the queen died. Free discussion is allowed as long as it is not criticism.
  - dang 6mo ago
    The point would be the same if the figure leaned otherwise, but (again, understandably) people only remember the cases that happened to strike them unpleasantly.
    - bluecheese452 6mo ago
      If you really believe that you are deceiving yourself.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
- dang 6mo ago
  It was a generic flamewar tangent: it takes the hottest points of indignation (richness, wrongness) to a such a level of generality that nothing concrete can be said. This doesn't overlap with curious conversation, and HN is supposed to be for the latter. It's admittedly hard to remain in curious conversation about things that are so activating, so it's quite understandable that people do it.