With people like Andreessen it's important to realize that he's saying whatever will most accomplish his goals, rather than using discussion as a method for investigating for truth.
That means there will be a mix of honesty in everything.
This fact is true of everyone to some degree, but to an extreme in Andreessen. He will not be talking to someone unless there is a specific goal around his empire. And his goals diverge from those of the random engineer in very large ways.
I don't know how to define psychopath, and I only know a handful of extremely rich people, but every single extremely rich person will be like this in their professional persona. And quite likely in the public persona, if they maintain one, because why maintain a public persona except to enhance professional success. Interactions with friends and family could easily be different.
(1) ac.. I approx Foucault as a centrist, but 'fess that shit could be undecidable ( without reviewing the inputs ) Conservatives are self-destructive :)
(2) Countersignalling is older than your parlance makes it sound. See Fussell Class, hipsters, etc
" I am deeply on Marc Andreessen’s side when he makes the basic point that society should aim to build more things like vaccines, housing, manufacturing, and new technologies.
Andreessen has, over the past few years, been engaged in a battle with people he calls ‘decels’, the enemies of growth."
Watching Marc Andreesen talk, I noticed everything he says is sort of strategic cosplaying. In the interview with Joe Rogan, one thing that jumped out at me was when he says, Democrats are now the party of the rich and the poor and Republicans are the party of the middle, but like, I could just vibe he didn't give a fuck about what he was saying, it just sounded good and was useful to him to say in that political moment.
I've listend to two interviews with him, and while he's obviously very smart and well read, he sort of obviously bias' everything he does to how he feels in the current moment, very adolescent in the elon musk / trump way. On the one hand he's able to write the it's time to build manifesto that does seem to say alot of the right things, while I think sort of secretly just trying to destablize the US / take down institutions / deeply nihilistic.
> In the interview with Joe Rogan, one thing that jumped out at me was when he says, Democrats are now the party of the rich and the poor and Republicans are the party of the middle, but like, I could just vibe he didn't give a fuck about what he was saying, it just sounded good and was useful to him to say in that political moment.
What does it mean for you to have vibed that he didn't give a fuck about what he was saying? This pithy observation about contemporary US poltical parties isn't unique to him and doesn't seem obviously incorrect. This seems like a pretty normal thing to state on a podcast like the one Joe Rogan does.
It seems obviously incorrect that all the billionaires supporting Trump don't see themselves as part of the "top". He's not making an observation, he's trying to confabulate a vision of the world that will appeal to people who will upvote him fake internet points.
The world we live in now is one where fake internet points can be redeemed for political and social capital. The worst people we know figured this out before the sane ones and that's why we're in this mess we're in.
There's only about 3000 billionaires in the world, most of whom aren't US citizens. Billionaires definitely use their wealth and business/social cachet to try to influence politics in a direction they see as good, but they don't agree among themselves about what that is, and don't support the same things politically. Many American billionaires support Trump, many others do not, still others aren't saying publicly.
More to the point if you're making a broad generalization about how politicians in the US appeal to different demographic segments within the American electorate, thinking about what significantly less than 3000 billionaires are doing at all is a rounding error.
With people like Andreessen it's important to realize that he's saying whatever will most accomplish his goals, rather than using discussion as a method for investigating for truth.
That means there will be a mix of honesty in everything.
This fact is true of everyone to some degree, but to an extreme in Andreessen. He will not be talking to someone unless there is a specific goal around his empire. And his goals diverge from those of the random engineer in very large ways.
Sounds like the traits of a psychopath?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad
I don't know how to define psychopath, and I only know a handful of extremely rich people, but every single extremely rich person will be like this in their professional persona. And quite likely in the public persona, if they maintain one, because why maintain a public persona except to enhance professional success. Interactions with friends and family could easily be different.
a16z has become a badge of honor for the worst people in tech (the ones who chase Forbes 30u30), and a stain to everyone else.
Related:
Billionaire Marc 'It's Time to Build' Andreesen Is a NIMBY
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45918652
Yea this whole thing really revealed the hypocritical and disingenuous "fuck you got mine" mindset.
(1) Aren't conservatives supposed to "conserve?"
(2) I like it that people are picking up the concept of "vice signalling"
(1) ac.. I approx Foucault as a centrist, but 'fess that shit could be undecidable ( without reviewing the inputs ) Conservatives are self-destructive :)
(2) Countersignalling is older than your parlance makes it sound. See Fussell Class, hipsters, etc
" I am deeply on Marc Andreessen’s side when he makes the basic point that society should aim to build more things like vaccines, housing, manufacturing, and new technologies.
Andreessen has, over the past few years, been engaged in a battle with people he calls ‘decels’, the enemies of growth."
Watching Marc Andreesen talk, I noticed everything he says is sort of strategic cosplaying. In the interview with Joe Rogan, one thing that jumped out at me was when he says, Democrats are now the party of the rich and the poor and Republicans are the party of the middle, but like, I could just vibe he didn't give a fuck about what he was saying, it just sounded good and was useful to him to say in that political moment.
I've listend to two interviews with him, and while he's obviously very smart and well read, he sort of obviously bias' everything he does to how he feels in the current moment, very adolescent in the elon musk / trump way. On the one hand he's able to write the it's time to build manifesto that does seem to say alot of the right things, while I think sort of secretly just trying to destablize the US / take down institutions / deeply nihilistic.
> In the interview with Joe Rogan, one thing that jumped out at me was when he says, Democrats are now the party of the rich and the poor and Republicans are the party of the middle, but like, I could just vibe he didn't give a fuck about what he was saying, it just sounded good and was useful to him to say in that political moment.
What does it mean for you to have vibed that he didn't give a fuck about what he was saying? This pithy observation about contemporary US poltical parties isn't unique to him and doesn't seem obviously incorrect. This seems like a pretty normal thing to state on a podcast like the one Joe Rogan does.
It seems obviously incorrect that all the billionaires supporting Trump don't see themselves as part of the "top". He's not making an observation, he's trying to confabulate a vision of the world that will appeal to people who will upvote him fake internet points.
The world we live in now is one where fake internet points can be redeemed for political and social capital. The worst people we know figured this out before the sane ones and that's why we're in this mess we're in.
There's only about 3000 billionaires in the world, most of whom aren't US citizens. Billionaires definitely use their wealth and business/social cachet to try to influence politics in a direction they see as good, but they don't agree among themselves about what that is, and don't support the same things politically. Many American billionaires support Trump, many others do not, still others aren't saying publicly.
More to the point if you're making a broad generalization about how politicians in the US appeal to different demographic segments within the American electorate, thinking about what significantly less than 3000 billionaires are doing at all is a rounding error.
[flagged]
This is funny because most readers would probably be honored to work with him or receive his funding
name checks out