It’s been 9 years since I watched this Peter Thiel talk, and it continues to haunt me.
Conversation
“I think this is the challenge all of us have. It’s to work towards a future that’s not just static like a dead channel on tv, but that’s a definite future and that’s a radically better future that can motivate, coordinate and inspire a number of people to change the world.”
1
1
11
“… and to go to a world where luck is something for us to overcome as we go along the way, but not something that becomes this absolute dominating force that stops all thought before it even starts.”
1
1
9
I don’t agree with all the assertions Thiel makes, but the argument should be taken seriously. It probably *is* better for the world to believe in a determinate future, and to make plans.
Whereas a bias for hedging and optionality stems from an indeterminate view of the future.
1
2
10
Scott Alexander, on Thiel’s Zero To One:
“If you write a book that goes ‘hey guys, conspiracies are doable and often successful’, and then a few years later succeed at multiple ambitious conspiracies … I think you are allowed to say this is something other than coincidence”
1
14
There’s a very subtle argument at the heart of Thiel’s talk that might not be clear, if you’re not looking out for it.
The basic setup: how do we think about luck? In the past, people saw luck as this thing to overcome. Today, we think luck is the natural order of things.
2
8
As a result, people in the past were more likely to make ambitious plans and then try and achieve them, overcoming the vagaries of luck in the process.
Today, we make less ambitious plans and instead talk about ‘making bets’ and ‘hedging risks’ and ‘diversifying our portfolios’.
3
9
Replying to
This seems like a reaction to changes in our society. Algorithms can elevate things so quickly that in many cases that latter strategy works far better.
Definitely feels like the dominant strategy and way people think have has shifted in the last ~2 generations.
1
1
Replying to
The haunting thing about Thiel's argument is his implicit assertion that a) yes, this may be the way reality is today, but b) if you want to build crazy ambitious things, you cannot believe it.