

Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley's Obsession with Superficial Thinking - makeitmoo
http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/inside-edge/3387493/peter-thiel-and-silicon-valleys-obsession-with-superficial-thinking.html

======
argumentum
Contrarian thinking doesn't reflexively oppose the consensus, but rather
_starts with the assumption_ that the consensus is wrong, insufficient and or
irrelevant.

In this case, the reviewer notes a seeming contradiction between Thiel's
critique of higher education and his implicit acknowledgement of the value of
relevant credentials on the Founders Fund website. The reviewer attributes
this to a sort of subconscious hypocrisy since he _assumes_ that Thiel takes
"everything about higher education is bad" as a first principle. If he sees
this rather as an initial hypothesis, it's quite easy to see how he'd conclude
(in this case) that the _signaling_ component of prestigious credentials has a
value apart from the entire higher ed enterprise. It does not follow that if
higher education is in a "bubble" it also has _no underlying value_. Both
assertions could very well be true.

I think both a "consensus impulse", i.e. the impulse to agree, and a
"contrarian impulse", the impulse to disagree, is present in everyone to
varying degrees. In most people, and in most circumstances, the former
dominates for good reasons: the practical social benefits of "going along to
get along" _and_ , intellectually, the likelihood that even if not "correct",
the consensus captures some underlying truths, particularly in rigorously
tested domains such as science. As such, treating the consensus as your acting
hypothesis is a great heuristic for success.

It is _precisely_ for this reason that opposing the consensus, even if only as
a thought experiment in your own mind, is _also_ of great value. If Einstein
took Newtonian physics as unalterable doctrine, say as the Church used to view
Aristotelean physics, he may have dismissed his own intuitions about
relativity to his (and our) great detriment. Where exactly to draw the line
and apply your reasoning is a highly subjective and particular exercise, and
"think for yourself", cliched as it sounds, is seems as good a rule as any. To
paraphrase Orwell, the hardest things to see are those right in front of your
own nose.

