> If you go back, like, 400 years ago, it never would have occurred to anybody to be introspective
Dunno, Shakespeare died 410 years ago and soliloquies on internal moral dilemmas and emotional states in Macbeth, Othello and Hamlet are a cornerstone of those plays.
Yeah. I'd invert his assumption. Any reading of history shows a lot of introspection. Read the writings of everyday soldiers in the Civil War. Read any writings from any of the Catholic thinkers of the last 2000 years. Read the Greeks and Romans. Marcus Aurelius was exceptional in his quality, but not in his direction. There are so many such examples throughout history that I think it would be much harder to examples of the lack of introspection.
If anything, I think the lack of introspection is a mostly modern phenomenon.
The quote is so obviously idiotic that I'd be shocked if it weren't quoted out of context entirely for clickbait. That being said I am not going to find and listen to that podcast to find out.
I think Marvin Minsky was the first person that I saw take a stand against "knowing yourself" Minsky himself struggled with Freud, wanted to reject Freud, yet found he couldn't do so entirely. With a little more insight than Andreesen he traced "pathological self-knowing" to Eastern roots including meditation practice.
What everybody gets wrong about Andreesen is that Andreesen's origin story of being radicalized through business falls flat: his business partner is the son of notorious conservative pugilist David Horowitz
What I find particularly interesting about this philosophical approach is how much it comes across like nothing so much as just searching for a plausible excuse for intellectual laziness.
Real introspection can be challenging and lead to some uncomfortable realizations about yourself, so it's understandable why someone might want to shy away from it. But rather than just admit that as a shortcoming and an opportunity for personal improvement, because admitting the need for personal improvement is also challenging, it's easy to concoct a reality where lack of introspection isn't just OK but actually the preferable alternative.
Adreessen seems like he's working from a definition of "introspection" that is something like: "negative thoughts and feelings towards the self; unproductive self-criticism, regret"
In other words, a mental doom-loop. But that's not really what introspection means at all.
Healthy introspection is simply attention, curiosity and reasoning applied to the self. It doesn't have to be the kind of mental self-flagellation he suggests.
It is of course, incredibly valuable - I think its basically the opposable thumb of the mind.
As I recall, Andreesen's descent started with his being publicly criticized during the cancel culture movement of the mid 2010s. This seems to relate to that - perhaps the criticism came so hard he couldn't take it, and his solution was to refuse to think about it.
I've always been a bit embarrassed by the extent of my self-conciousness, but recently I'm starting to think of it as more of a virtue than a hindrance.
"If I were introspective, I'd have to admit that I was really lucky, I am not special, and that the govt funded the things that helped me get rich. I'd also have to admit that my current worldview and that of my peers/friends is inherently evil and we are destroying the world. So instead I'll just pretend introspection is bad."
It’s funny that everyone is coming around to understanding the rich elite are mostly socio- and psychopaths. People who were clued into them early were told they were rude for calling them out but now the they are just admitting it straight up.
I’m sorry to say it but Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Sama, and Bezos are clearly on that spectrum. And no, it’s not autism it’s sociopathy — they view us as NPCs and call empathy a weakness and a scam. And if you think this is rude to say, I don’t because the palpable lack of empathy at the highest echelons of power (from POTUS down) is becoming a real liability for humanity as a whole given the amount of power they have amassed.
I think Andreessen sucks, but I think body-shaming him is lame too, especially in the opening sentence (yes I read the whole article and agree with it to the point that I have nothing to say about the rest)
When you read quotes like this you might remember that the wealthy can be unremarkable, uneducated and unskilled just like anyone else. They are not special. Sometimes they can even be shocklingly ignorant fools like Marc Andreesen.
The video [0] that has a transcript provides a little more context.
A. Andreessen, I'd bet, enjoys a degree of controversy and nothing gets people activated so much as "being wrong on the Internet." [1]
B. In context, Andreessen's critique of "introspection" has to do with a particular variety, "I've just I found people who dwell in the past get stuck in the past. It's it's just it's a real problem and it's it's a problem at work and it's a problem at home." Probably a better term for Andreessen to use is "rumination." But, given A., that would be less controversial.
C. More broadly, there is some criticism of how "know thyself" is interpreted today and perhaps in TFA, which is less than developed. In the Meaning Crisis lecture series Vervaeke [2] notes:
That's not what "Know thyself" means. It doesn't mean that kind of stroking
of your autobiographical ego. Know thyself is much more a kind of direct
participatory knowing. It means understanding how you operate. It's not - if
I were to use a literary analogy - it's not like your autobiography, it's
more like your owner's manual.
D. Criticism of Andreessen seems to have the generic perspective of public health in mind rather than the perspective of "I'm happy that works for you." Consider for a moment how hard it is for a person to realize that the minds of other people are drastically different from one's own, such as having an "inner monologue" or not [3] and how “Introspection reveals that one is frequently conscious of some form of inner speech, which may appear either in a condensed or expanded form.” [4] The inner experience of Andreessen may be very different from that of his critics.
57 comments
> If you go back, like, 400 years ago, it never would have occurred to anybody to be introspective
Dunno, Shakespeare died 410 years ago and soliloquies on internal moral dilemmas and emotional states in Macbeth, Othello and Hamlet are a cornerstone of those plays.
If anything, I think the lack of introspection is a mostly modern phenomenon.
I imagine Andreessen was kind of trolling?
What everybody gets wrong about Andreesen is that Andreesen's origin story of being radicalized through business falls flat: his business partner is the son of notorious conservative pugilist David Horowitz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
and I find it impossible to believe that he didn't get a big dose of ideology from that source.
Real introspection can be challenging and lead to some uncomfortable realizations about yourself, so it's understandable why someone might want to shy away from it. But rather than just admit that as a shortcoming and an opportunity for personal improvement, because admitting the need for personal improvement is also challenging, it's easy to concoct a reality where lack of introspection isn't just OK but actually the preferable alternative.
In other words, a mental doom-loop. But that's not really what introspection means at all.
Healthy introspection is simply attention, curiosity and reasoning applied to the self. It doesn't have to be the kind of mental self-flagellation he suggests.
It is of course, incredibly valuable - I think its basically the opposable thumb of the mind.
>Marc Andreessen is a philosophical zombie
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47445593 (33 comments)
~2 Corinthians 13:5~ Freud
I’m sorry to say it but Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Sama, and Bezos are clearly on that spectrum. And no, it’s not autism it’s sociopathy — they view us as NPCs and call empathy a weakness and a scam. And if you think this is rude to say, I don’t because the palpable lack of empathy at the highest echelons of power (from POTUS down) is becoming a real liability for humanity as a whole given the amount of power they have amassed.
> and a man with an impossibly large head
I think Andreessen sucks, but I think body-shaming him is lame too, especially in the opening sentence (yes I read the whole article and agree with it to the point that I have nothing to say about the rest)
A. Andreessen, I'd bet, enjoys a degree of controversy and nothing gets people activated so much as "being wrong on the Internet." [1]
B. In context, Andreessen's critique of "introspection" has to do with a particular variety, "I've just I found people who dwell in the past get stuck in the past. It's it's just it's a real problem and it's it's a problem at work and it's a problem at home." Probably a better term for Andreessen to use is "rumination." But, given A., that would be less controversial.
C. More broadly, there is some criticism of how "know thyself" is interpreted today and perhaps in TFA, which is less than developed. In the Meaning Crisis lecture series Vervaeke [2] notes:
D. Criticism of Andreessen seems to have the generic perspective of public health in mind rather than the perspective of "I'm happy that works for you." Consider for a moment how hard it is for a person to realize that the minds of other people are drastically different from one's own, such as having an "inner monologue" or not [3] and how “Introspection reveals that one is frequently conscious of some form of inner speech, which may appear either in a condensed or expanded form.” [4] The inner experience of Andreessen may be very different from that of his critics.0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVe3M2g_SA
1. https://xkcd.com/386/
2. https://www.meaningcrisis.co/episode-4-socrates-and-the-ques...
3. https://ryanandrewlangdon.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/today-i-l...
4. https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/hurlburt-heavey-2018.pdf