Poor Marc, such a victim of his own success. I’ve seen him speak live, and it was clear from listening to him that he was very out of touch with reality. He was insightful on technology, and he definitely had a good understanding of business, but I had a feeling this was somebody who did great things long ago and has been coasting on their reputation and their money ever since. I wonder if in his personal life anyone ever tells him he's wrong or pushes back on him.
There are obviously tonnes of accurate stereotypes in the TV show Silicon Valley, but one of the ones I think about often is when Richard calculates how much money Russ Hanneman has made investing his billions... and it works out to less than sticking it in the bank.
You've got all these silicon valley guys running around "venture investing", the truth is it's more of a life style than a money making exercise. They made their money decades ago, and now they're just sort of hanging around desperately trying to tell everyone how clever they are.
The problem is once you have enough “moats” of capital and connections and all that, you get to keep on holding power and directing power. You get to make the next generation of startups. It’s a flaw in our system that these people get to steer society the way they do.
Sometimes we trust the wrong people, sometimes we love the wrong people, sometimes the wrong people luck into incredible wealth and downstream power from said wealth. Most of life is luck. It is a gift when someone shows us who they are, removing any doubt or ambiguity.
Investors are rarely boycotted, deposed, or otherwise held accountable for their actions. It is advantageous to adopt whatever philosophical position absolves them of any guilt or responsibility since there is no benefit to having morals, or even signaling them. Of course he thinks this.
I also disagree with the other poster, the manifesto he wrote is remarkably repetitive and not insightful at all.
How much money would you need to stand to gain in exchange for your brain being atrophied this much? I don’t think there’s any amount where it makes sense…
Interesting thing to tell people - this means any change of heart or apology from Marc should be viewed purely through a cold realist self interest lens and not be afforded any of the trappings of humanity.
Interesting how a person who wrote something as thoughtful as The Techno-Optimist Manifesto could hold views like these at the same time. Whether you agree with the manifesto or not, Andreessen has achieved a rare level of insight that can only come through serious introspection about society, and then he denies the existence of introspection outright.
I guess the level of open-mindedness needed to become a successful tech entrepreneur also enabled that same cohort to consider extremely counter-intuitive ideas - the ones that would have been immediately dismissed by most.
Much simpler. Those in power, in every place and in every time, adopt self-serving beliefs that justify their place as the ones in power and flatter themselves. No different in any day or any time. Same quasi-messianic ideals as ever. Their beliefs don’t have to pay rent or correspond with reality.
20+ years ago, when Marc was only famous for Mosaic and Netscape, not being VC, in the Materials Research Lab at UIUC, there was a form, hand-filled in by Marc, with his picture taped on, from when he started working at MRL, or maybe at NCSA as a student. It was on a bulletin board in a glass display case in the hall where department announcements would go, or recent research papers.
The form had various entries like "favorite food" that are common when you join a team.
The only answer I remember was that under "favorite saying", he answered: "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy". It stuck with me.
Everytime I see or hear about him, I remember that. Doubly so when I see this article.
I've always wondered if that's still there, hanging in that display case.
Yeah, could be. It'd fit with a nerdy guy. I knew there was at least one song version and other sources of the quote. Dr Demento just makes me think of "Fish Heads".
What stuck with me about the form, for me, was that he looked and answered just like any other college kid.
The Verge article photo art is a sort of comic exaggeration of a lobotomy, so I guess he's come full circle.
> According to Chater, our minds can only do one thing at a time — that is, that we cannot have two thoughts at once, and the idea that we can is an illusion.
On a pure neurological basis, this is just untrue. It's well-established in research that the brain is massively parallel and one of the main differences between it and a digital computer is that it is doing a lot of different things all at once, not switching between different things quickly.
(For the papers, I'm not necessarily advocating for their conclusions, but they're a good jumping-off point to see all the things they cite, which shows a consensus about how the brain works neurologically.)
I suppose that doesn't mean that our conscious cognition must also be parallel, but there's not really a lot of good reason to assume it _wouldn't_ be, other than that it fits Chater's position.
I think when Andreessen said “long-term memory is mostly fake” he probably meant that we fabricate a lot of our memories, not that it’s impossible for a human to ever remember something. The author could keep in mind the principle of charity.
I wonder if this lack of interiority is a common trait amongst the most economically successful. I wouldn’t be surprised. The less introspection I do the more I end up optimizing for wealth, it’s pretty much the default in our society unless you consciously pick something else.
I guess this really depends on your view of the world. Was Marc Andreessen some visionary without whom no one would've ever figured out images could appear on websites. Some kind of Albert Einstein of cat gifs. Or was the img tag an inevitability once the web had enough bandwidth to transfer images.
The article seems a bit silly. Andressen has said he's not introspective, I guess as in "the active, conscious examination of one’s own mental, emotional, and psychological processes". The article jumps from not thinking about your processes to "lacking conscious experiences altogether" which is quite different.
This thing where [person good in one thing] thinks they are great in [all the things] is so, so stupid. And the blame is to it's inner circle who are just yes-folks saying yeah to all the things. Sure you don't introspect! Definitely not in the interviews where your think back on your Netscape times and what you could have done better! There are plenty of episodes on that! Sure introspection is a new thing! Definitely Marcus Aurelius, Seneca or Epictetus mentioned anything of the sorts!
I would have never thought it would be possible to wage a war against introspection and make a claim that self-introspection was concocted in the 1820s. It's just patently bizarre.
To claim that Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Galileo, Kong Qiu, and the countless other poets, authors, philosophers, and just general people didn't self-introspect until it was artificially introduced in the 1820s is just flat out mental illness.
I have actively told recruiters that tout this guy and his VC firm as a positive that it is indeed not and that I have no interested in working for a place in which he is involved.
It's also bizarre that he's developed a sort of tick that seems like he's breathing in his own smell and breath.
Disclaiming introspection is itself a form of introspection. Arguing against introspection, rationalizing one's own dysfunction, is just too cute by half.
Look, it's just really disturbing that this guy is the paradigm of a successful VC. He's literally a prideful ignorant, and possibly just a terrible person.
From the crew that ruined tech investing with VC bubbles, commandeered innovation to make a surveillance state, sold out the middle class to H1B and DEI, politicized tech media, then laid everyone off.
Poor Marc, such a victim of his own success. I’ve seen him speak live, and it was clear from listening to him that he was very out of touch with reality. He was insightful on technology, and he definitely had a good understanding of business, but I had a feeling this was somebody who did great things long ago and has been coasting on their reputation and their money ever since. I wonder if in his personal life anyone ever tells him he's wrong or pushes back on him.
There are obviously tonnes of accurate stereotypes in the TV show Silicon Valley, but one of the ones I think about often is when Richard calculates how much money Russ Hanneman has made investing his billions... and it works out to less than sticking it in the bank.
You've got all these silicon valley guys running around "venture investing", the truth is it's more of a life style than a money making exercise. They made their money decades ago, and now they're just sort of hanging around desperately trying to tell everyone how clever they are.
The problem is once you have enough “moats” of capital and connections and all that, you get to keep on holding power and directing power. You get to make the next generation of startups. It’s a flaw in our system that these people get to steer society the way they do.
Sometimes we trust the wrong people, sometimes we love the wrong people, sometimes the wrong people luck into incredible wealth and downstream power from said wealth. Most of life is luck. It is a gift when someone shows us who they are, removing any doubt or ambiguity.
Being a billionaire is bad for one's brain.
Investors are rarely boycotted, deposed, or otherwise held accountable for their actions. It is advantageous to adopt whatever philosophical position absolves them of any guilt or responsibility since there is no benefit to having morals, or even signaling them. Of course he thinks this.
I also disagree with the other poster, the manifesto he wrote is remarkably repetitive and not insightful at all.
How much money would you need to stand to gain in exchange for your brain being atrophied this much? I don’t think there’s any amount where it makes sense…
Interesting thing to tell people - this means any change of heart or apology from Marc should be viewed purely through a cold realist self interest lens and not be afforded any of the trappings of humanity.
Don’t anthropomorphise the lawnmower indeed.
https://archive.is/FjFtH
Interesting how a person who wrote something as thoughtful as The Techno-Optimist Manifesto could hold views like these at the same time. Whether you agree with the manifesto or not, Andreessen has achieved a rare level of insight that can only come through serious introspection about society, and then he denies the existence of introspection outright.
I guess the level of open-mindedness needed to become a successful tech entrepreneur also enabled that same cohort to consider extremely counter-intuitive ideas - the ones that would have been immediately dismissed by most.
Much simpler. Those in power, in every place and in every time, adopt self-serving beliefs that justify their place as the ones in power and flatter themselves. No different in any day or any time. Same quasi-messianic ideals as ever. Their beliefs don’t have to pay rent or correspond with reality.
Thinking about society is not introspection. Introspection is, by definition, only about one’s own thoughts and feelings.
I think taxes is a way to make someone thoughtful and self-introspective.
They did make the Founding Fathers think quite a lot about some particular thing.
Or if it gets too out of hand turn to the French for inspiration.
20+ years ago, when Marc was only famous for Mosaic and Netscape, not being VC, in the Materials Research Lab at UIUC, there was a form, hand-filled in by Marc, with his picture taped on, from when he started working at MRL, or maybe at NCSA as a student. It was on a bulletin board in a glass display case in the hall where department announcements would go, or recent research papers.
The form had various entries like "favorite food" that are common when you join a team.
The only answer I remember was that under "favorite saying", he answered: "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy". It stuck with me.
Everytime I see or hear about him, I remember that. Doubly so when I see this article.
I've always wondered if that's still there, hanging in that display case.
Maybe he was a fan of the Dr. Demento show which played the song quite a bit?
https://www.discogs.com/release/7897134-Randy-Hanzlick-MD-Dr...
Yeah, could be. It'd fit with a nerdy guy. I knew there was at least one song version and other sources of the quote. Dr Demento just makes me think of "Fish Heads".
What stuck with me about the form, for me, was that he looked and answered just like any other college kid.
The Verge article photo art is a sort of comic exaggeration of a lobotomy, so I guess he's come full circle.
Marc was a “spokesperson” for the team, he did not build Mosaic. Other engineers like Eric Bina and those under NDA built it.
> According to Chater, our minds can only do one thing at a time — that is, that we cannot have two thoughts at once, and the idea that we can is an illusion.
On a pure neurological basis, this is just untrue. It's well-established in research that the brain is massively parallel and one of the main differences between it and a digital computer is that it is doing a lot of different things all at once, not switching between different things quickly.
Here are some references:
[0] https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/1946/differen... (good lay explanation) [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4387515/ [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/parallel-p... [3] https://esmed.org/parallel-processing-in-problem-solving-a-n...
(For the papers, I'm not necessarily advocating for their conclusions, but they're a good jumping-off point to see all the things they cite, which shows a consensus about how the brain works neurologically.)
I suppose that doesn't mean that our conscious cognition must also be parallel, but there's not really a lot of good reason to assume it _wouldn't_ be, other than that it fits Chater's position.
I think when Andreessen said “long-term memory is mostly fake” he probably meant that we fabricate a lot of our memories, not that it’s impossible for a human to ever remember something. The author could keep in mind the principle of charity.
I wonder if this lack of interiority is a common trait amongst the most economically successful. I wouldn’t be surprised. The less introspection I do the more I end up optimizing for wealth, it’s pretty much the default in our society unless you consciously pick something else.
forrest gump with better luck
He did come up with the img tag, without which the web would have been gopher.
There's ample reason to dislike him without claiming that he hasn't done anything real.
I guess this really depends on your view of the world. Was Marc Andreessen some visionary without whom no one would've ever figured out images could appear on websites. Some kind of Albert Einstein of cat gifs. Or was the img tag an inevitability once the web had enough bandwidth to transfer images.
Luck? I don't recall Forest stealing their employer's IP.
(Netscape did settle with UIUC, FWIW.)
The article seems a bit silly. Andressen has said he's not introspective, I guess as in "the active, conscious examination of one’s own mental, emotional, and psychological processes". The article jumps from not thinking about your processes to "lacking conscious experiences altogether" which is quite different.
This thing where [person good in one thing] thinks they are great in [all the things] is so, so stupid. And the blame is to it's inner circle who are just yes-folks saying yeah to all the things. Sure you don't introspect! Definitely not in the interviews where your think back on your Netscape times and what you could have done better! There are plenty of episodes on that! Sure introspection is a new thing! Definitely Marcus Aurelius, Seneca or Epictetus mentioned anything of the sorts!
Andreessen is literally brainrot.
I would have never thought it would be possible to wage a war against introspection and make a claim that self-introspection was concocted in the 1820s. It's just patently bizarre.
To claim that Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Galileo, Kong Qiu, and the countless other poets, authors, philosophers, and just general people didn't self-introspect until it was artificially introduced in the 1820s is just flat out mental illness.
I have actively told recruiters that tout this guy and his VC firm as a positive that it is indeed not and that I have no interested in working for a place in which he is involved.
It's also bizarre that he's developed a sort of tick that seems like he's breathing in his own smell and breath.
he simply revealed himself, but we all knew
I would've never guessed.
I thought he was merely a moral cripple. Akin to a sociopath.
TIL since that interview: People who struggle to express emotions may have the condition alexithymia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia
But in @pmarca's case...
Disclaiming introspection is itself a form of introspection. Arguing against introspection, rationalizing one's own dysfunction, is just too cute by half.
I don't buy it.
Look, it's just really disturbing that this guy is the paradigm of a successful VC. He's literally a prideful ignorant, and possibly just a terrible person.
Marc Andreesen was not the main builder of anything. He was a “spokesperson” at best for the team, he did not build Mosaic.
Other engineers like Eric Bina and those under NDA built it.
From the crew that ruined tech investing with VC bubbles, commandeered innovation to make a surveillance state, sold out the middle class to H1B and DEI, politicized tech media, then laid everyone off.
I don’t think I like that guy