3 ms·

It depends whether we're debating the actual person, or the fictionalized character depicted in the media. If you've never been on the other side of the news,

by paul 12y ago

It depends whether we're debating the actual person, or the fictionalized character depicted in the media. If you've never been on the other side of the news, you may not understand the difference.

foobarqux 12y ago
I am well aware of media distortion. As with all news reporting and analysis the answer is not to withhold judgement (otherwise you could not make decisions) it is to use reasoning and experience to form an opinion and assess a confidence level to that opinion. You have a double standard: You certainly won't be coming to the defense of alleged misogynists and sexual harassment, for example, with cries of "but you don't really know the person" and talk of "fictionalized characterizations".
- paul 12y ago
  Why wouldn't I defend "alleged misogynists"? In general, I find the lynch-mob culture here to be problematic and unhealthy. In this particular case I commented because I have direct experience with some of the people being discussed and am familiar with the ways in which the popular group-think diverges from reality for this group. At the same time, I know it's pointless to argue with people who already know the answer, so I'm probably wasting my time.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    > Why wouldn't I defend "alleged misogynists"? Because it is widely perceived as socially indefensible and because of YC's support for women in particular. Perhaps it is an unfair to apply these generalizations to you, however I seriously doubt you (or any public figure) would depart from them. Nonetheless, the point was more general: Obviously you form opinions of people without knowing them personally. > In this particular case I commented because I have direct experience with some of the people being discussed and am familiar with the ways in which the popular group-think diverges from reality for this group. I pointed out that your experience may not be informative because of the particular power relations of your interactions. I think that is a fair observation. This group is ill-informed, has poor reasoning skills and poor judgement. That doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether successful people are more likely to be sociopaths. > I know it's pointless to argue with people who already know the answer You could apply the statement equally well to yourself.
    - paul 12y ago
      That's the trouble with mob justice, allegations equals guilt, and disagreement is socially indefensible. My purpose in all of this is not to "prove" that these are all nice people, but simply to point that you are all speaking with great confidence about the characters of people that you really know nothing about.
      - foobarqux 12y ago
        I don't think the implication that a reasonable person cannot often (not always) speak with high confidence about people we "know nothing about" is fair. Sometimes those reasonable conclusions will concur with the rabid mob, other times it won't. It's not right when people unjustifiably get socially lynched by the mob and it happens often. However, many successful people really are sociopaths --- which might be expected from a person who puts success before anything else --- and I don't think anyone ought to give up forming opinions on anyone else just because the mob often gets it wrong or because we don't know every detail of the lives of the accused. If that weren't the case then we couldn't pass judgement on many of the people we "obviously" want to (despots, etc). (And disagreement, in particular defending tech executives, is not socially indefensible, defending sexism is).
      - FD3SA 12y ago
        Paul, I get a sense that you have a keenly ingrained sense of morality and justice. What you may want to try is looking at fictional or hypothetical scenarios which depicts people's actions from an observer's point of view. Then compare the same facts coming from a friend's point of view. You will be astonished at how different the two can be. Nobody here is saying the YC and VC community are all evil super-villians. But as PG's essay and your views here indicate, there may be a startlingly shallow understanding of the nuances of human behavior in the YC community as a whole. Techies such as ourselves tend to be very optimistic and trusting people. We always give our friends the benefit of the doubt when we can. But you and PG are seemingly taking this way, way too far in spite of mountains of contrary evidence (and I'm talking evolutionary biology, not just anecdotal). Humans are primates who form status hierarchies and ruthlessly enforce them via any means necessary. This includes power asymmetry, extortion, bribery, status signaling, and a whole host of others nasty behaviors (watch Game of Thrones for the full gamut). That PG and yourself apparently deny this basic biological fact for a certain group (i.e. YC founders) does not make it less true. I have to disclaim here that I'm a huge fan of yours Paul, and I know much about the incredible struggles you've faced in life. I know the only way to move forward is to be relentlessly positive, and this is also my own personal philosophy. However, part of being a rational person is trying to see the empirical world for what it is, not what we want it to be. I think this is the only thing PG is guilty of; He wants founders to be above average in altruism, when the reality may be the opposite. All the best, and forever a fan.
leoc 12y ago
You do know about the 1930s phenomenon of diplomats and other prominenti flying home cooing about how Herr Hitler is greatly misunderstood? Personal acquaintance is not always a better way to judge someone's real character than the documentary evidence. Speaking of which: I'd have to dig to find the reference, but I've read (part of) a book by a psychologist at Microsoft. She stated that one of her official duties was to try to help people deal with their billg sessions. Pretty unusual even by the standards of high-level business meetings, yes? I feel embarrassed even mentioning SJ: let's begin with the 500-page official biography, which in turn corroborates (or sometimes just regurgitates) first-person accounts, books by fairly-well-regarded authors like Steven Levy and Michael S. Malone ... Are you meaning to include this kind of evidence under the category of 'media noise'?

by paul 12y ago

It depends whether we're debating the actual person, or the fictionalized character depicted in the media. If you've never been on the other side of the news, you may not understand the difference.

foobarqux 12y ago

I am well aware of media distortion. As with all news reporting and analysis the answer is not to withhold judgement (otherwise you could not make decisions) it is to use reasoning and experience to form an opinion and assess a confidence level to that opinion. You have a double standard: You certainly won't be coming to the defense of alleged misogynists and sexual harassment, for example, with cries of "but you don't really know the person" and talk of "fictionalized characterizations".

paul 12y ago
Why wouldn't I defend "alleged misogynists"? In general, I find the lynch-mob culture here to be problematic and unhealthy. In this particular case I commented because I have direct experience with some of the people being discussed and am familiar with the ways in which the popular group-think diverges from reality for this group. At the same time, I know it's pointless to argue with people who already know the answer, so I'm probably wasting my time.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  > Why wouldn't I defend "alleged misogynists"? Because it is widely perceived as socially indefensible and because of YC's support for women in particular. Perhaps it is an unfair to apply these generalizations to you, however I seriously doubt you (or any public figure) would depart from them. Nonetheless, the point was more general: Obviously you form opinions of people without knowing them personally. > In this particular case I commented because I have direct experience with some of the people being discussed and am familiar with the ways in which the popular group-think diverges from reality for this group. I pointed out that your experience may not be informative because of the particular power relations of your interactions. I think that is a fair observation. This group is ill-informed, has poor reasoning skills and poor judgement. That doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether successful people are more likely to be sociopaths. > I know it's pointless to argue with people who already know the answer You could apply the statement equally well to yourself.
  - paul 12y ago
    That's the trouble with mob justice, allegations equals guilt, and disagreement is socially indefensible. My purpose in all of this is not to "prove" that these are all nice people, but simply to point that you are all speaking with great confidence about the characters of people that you really know nothing about.
    - foobarqux 12y ago
      I don't think the implication that a reasonable person cannot often (not always) speak with high confidence about people we "know nothing about" is fair. Sometimes those reasonable conclusions will concur with the rabid mob, other times it won't. It's not right when people unjustifiably get socially lynched by the mob and it happens often. However, many successful people really are sociopaths --- which might be expected from a person who puts success before anything else --- and I don't think anyone ought to give up forming opinions on anyone else just because the mob often gets it wrong or because we don't know every detail of the lives of the accused. If that weren't the case then we couldn't pass judgement on many of the people we "obviously" want to (despots, etc). (And disagreement, in particular defending tech executives, is not socially indefensible, defending sexism is).
    - FD3SA 12y ago
      Paul, I get a sense that you have a keenly ingrained sense of morality and justice. What you may want to try is looking at fictional or hypothetical scenarios which depicts people's actions from an observer's point of view. Then compare the same facts coming from a friend's point of view. You will be astonished at how different the two can be. Nobody here is saying the YC and VC community are all evil super-villians. But as PG's essay and your views here indicate, there may be a startlingly shallow understanding of the nuances of human behavior in the YC community as a whole. Techies such as ourselves tend to be very optimistic and trusting people. We always give our friends the benefit of the doubt when we can. But you and PG are seemingly taking this way, way too far in spite of mountains of contrary evidence (and I'm talking evolutionary biology, not just anecdotal). Humans are primates who form status hierarchies and ruthlessly enforce them via any means necessary. This includes power asymmetry, extortion, bribery, status signaling, and a whole host of others nasty behaviors (watch Game of Thrones for the full gamut). That PG and yourself apparently deny this basic biological fact for a certain group (i.e. YC founders) does not make it less true. I have to disclaim here that I'm a huge fan of yours Paul, and I know much about the incredible struggles you've faced in life. I know the only way to move forward is to be relentlessly positive, and this is also my own personal philosophy. However, part of being a rational person is trying to see the empirical world for what it is, not what we want it to be. I think this is the only thing PG is guilty of; He wants founders to be above average in altruism, when the reality may be the opposite. All the best, and forever a fan.

leoc 12y ago

You do know about the 1930s phenomenon of diplomats and other prominenti flying home cooing about how Herr Hitler is greatly misunderstood? Personal acquaintance is not always a better way to judge someone's real character than the documentary evidence. Speaking of which: I'd have to dig to find the reference, but I've read (part of) a book by a psychologist at Microsoft. She stated that one of her official duties was to try to help people deal with their billg sessions. Pretty unusual even by the standards of high-level business meetings, yes? I feel embarrassed even mentioning SJ: let's begin with the 500-page official biography, which in turn corroborates (or sometimes just regurgitates) first-person accounts, books by fairly-well-regarded authors like Steven Levy and Michael S. Malone ... Are you meaning to include this kind of evidence under the category of 'media noise'?