= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on What are "the really good ideas" that Peter Thiel says are too dangerous to mention? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
The kinds of things which an upper-class American is prone to believe (which would not garner him favour with other members of society), I suppose. I mean, I'm not expecting him to be secretly yearning for a Communist workers' paradise. Also he is an entrepreneur with transhumanist sympathies, therefore a forward-thinking guy, so probably the internet crusaders from the opposite camp aren't bashing his ideas yet -- because they haven't yet conceived of them; you can count on people like him to think in an original way -- but probably will be in 20 years from now.
HOWEVER. I take issue with the thing you're attempting to do with this post. Obviously none of us are Thiel himself; obviously the attempt to guess what Thiel meant is a classic case of grasping at straws; whatever the community can come up with probably isn't even in the same ballpark as Thiel's secret heresies. Besides, if I were him, I'd personally be bothered by some random people's attempts to guess at beliefs I don't want to make public, for reasons relating to the telephone game that ensues and the risk of other people from other websites misinterpreting those positions as my own. Alas, that is but my own take on this, because I'm not Peter Thiel. Obviously.
I regard this kind of challenge as inflammatory. Even though I remember having made a case for more political discussion on LessWrong, time and again I get reminded how awfully LessWrongers handle political topics, and how badly I had overestimated people's aptitude at not causing political discussions to degenerate into flame wars. This is worse than the average political discussion. This is an open invitation for people to fill in the blanks with their pet thoughtcrimes, as long as they consider themselves roughly on the same side of the political spectrum as Thiel. It's going to attract the worst sort of people, and it can harm participants, onlookers, and Thiel himself.
You're a smart guy, you don't need me to tell you that we cannot run an accurate simulation of Thiel, and I know from your article publication history that you're not doing this for inquisitorial purposes, which leaves the intention of drawing attention to his "really good ideas". However, the man himself (ostensibly) wants the opposite. Which he is in full right to do. So how about we leave him be and refrain from making wild guesses as to what he meant?
I don't know about inflammatory, but it's pretty clearly a waste of time. We're more likely to find out what is true by looking for that rather than guessing about what Thiel is thinking.
Well put.
Furthermore, is there any great mystery about the possible scope of these hidden opinions? I suspect (though how can I verify?) that most of these "too controversial to mention" opinions can be enumerated by simple inversion of common beliefs.
Blue is right -> Blue is wrong Green is good -> Green is bad
If we're talking about things you can't say because of moral outrage, then there aren't that many beliefs that are common enough to provoke widespread outrage by publicly challenging them. Maybe you can't guess exactly why Blue is Actually Bad, but you know the general forms of how it could be so.
Certainly there are other, more exotic things you shouldn't say in public ("How to build a super laser weapon from pocket change", etc), but I doubt this problem is the driving force here.