“… 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.”
Conversation
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
Replying to
IMO the way the word "luck" is used here is why it can be confusing.
Chance is part of the natural order, a lot has been written about this.
Luck, i.e. how you make chance affect you favorably, can absolutely be influenced. See 4 kinds of luck, etc.
1
3
also somewhat related
Quote Tweet
a huge part of success at anything is about being at the right place at the right time – maybe 80% – this is also the number one thing that narrativizing and mythologizing leaves out, because you sound much more impressive if you imply you achieved greatness thru force of will
Show this thread
1
3
Replying to
The core of Thiel's argument, the bit that's so haunting to me, is his implicit argument that a) yes, reality may be probabilistic but b) if you want to build crazy ambitious things, it's not useful to believe that it is — because you won't try as hard to make things succeed.
2
3
11
Replying to
Actually Reid Hoffman's model is useful here: A founder needs to simultaneously hold multiple strong conflicting beliefs & be able to switch back & forth between them
So I don't think it's about choosing between probabilistic or crazy ambitious. It's about knowing when to switch
1
2
Maybe that's what you mean by haunting?
Anyway Reid Hoffman talks about this here:
1
2
Replying to
Oh yes, that’s what I mean by haunting.
I viscerally reject parts of the argument. But there is undeniable logic in there.
Anyway Hoffman’s framing is way more useful. Thank you!
GIF
read image description
ALT