
The famous Peter Thiel interview question - vinnyglennon
https://blog.safegraph.com/why-the-famous-peter-thiel-interview-question-is-so-predictive-46ede01392c8
======
Nition
> The Thiel question is a great one because it reveals that most people hold
> conventional opinions and call them “heretical.”

Selecting a response that sounds "heretical" but is actually fairly mainstream
sounds like _exactly_ the sort of response you'd try to come up with _in a job
interview_.

In other news, the famous interview question "what would you say is your
greatest weakness" reveals that most people's greatest weakness is actually
not very bad, and could even be spun as a positive.

~~~
hirundo
> In other news, the famous interview question "what would you say is your
> greatest weakness" reveals that most people's greatest weakness is actually
> not very bad, and could even be spun as a positive.

I think that question survives not because it plumbs the candidate's greatest
weakness but because it shows how gracefully they can walk a tightrope. Same
for the Thiel question.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
I think that question survives because most interviewers are too lazy to come
up with original insightful questions. Leading a good interview is hard and
most employees treat it as a chore instead of a skill.

I heard that question for the first time during an interview recently and the
entire conversation felt hostile. It felt like the interviewer was doing
everything possible to find fault with me, and had very little interest in
discovering my strengths (there was a lot more to it than just that one
question). It was enough to make me think I should work somewhere else,
despite loving everything else about the company.

~~~
hisnameismanuel
It survives because around 15% of candidates, in my experience, say mind-
blowingly dumb things that make it easy to say no.

As an interviewer, this is one of my goals - to hunt for easy filters.. the
social version of a FizzBuzz test.

~~~
renox
So your goal is to filter people who say dumb things _answering a dumb
question_??

~~~
OnlineGladiator
This. Too many interviewers treat the interview as a hostile test rather than
a conversation. They often sound annoyed that they even have to give an
interview. Even when I have enough connections to avoid the regular interview
gauntlet I always choose to participate as it tells me a lot about the company
culture. A series of bad interviewers asking dumb or lazy questions is enough
to make me want to work elsewhere.

------
Pfhreak
Is this really a good predictor?

This seems like practically it would be used to not hire people on the basis
of 'culture fit'. I can think of many answers to this question that could
disclose a protected status, political or religious ideology, or some other
belief that now you have to consider in the candidate. (What if someone says,
"Software engineers should fight for unionization.")

Do you really get a good signal on the three things the question is intended
to find? (Whether people fear judgement, aren't introspective, etc.)

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _I can think of many answers to this question that could disclose a
> protected status, political or religious ideology, or some other belief that
> now you have to consider in the candidate._ "

Funny you should jump straight to those things. Given how opinionated we all
are, I imagine most experienced software professionals would have at least one
contrarian opinion about something technological in their profession. I can
think of a few without even trying.

~~~
Pfhreak
I'm a hiring manager, one of the things that's drilled into me during my
trainings is to be conscious of what questions are off limits during hiring.
:D

------
tehjoker
I wonder if many of these "think differently" questions are less about finding
a brilliant theorist and more about finding people who can cope with social
condemnation that comes with operating the gears of capital and have the
capacity to produce rationales that create enough space to operate without
being shut down.

After all, few big innovations come from business, most come from research.
Thiel is looking for capable managers of capital.

This after all explains Theil's own career of holding opinions that are not
brilliant, but are socially destructive while simultaneously making him rich.
He think the female vote was a mistake, he founded a deep state company that
assists in intelligence gathering for the military-industrial complex and the
NSA. He killed a newspaper.... and so on. He has been called a neo-feudalist.

~~~
cvhashim
He also has a doomsday bunker in NZ

------
femiagbabiaka
It’s somewhat impressive the degree to which an industry that thinks of itself
as being so enlightened falls prey to cults of personality so often.

~~~
throwawaymath
And also ironic, given the subject matter of this particular article
(contrarianism as empowering idea generator).

Once upon a time, similar thinkpieces extolled the virtues of asking
candidates to introspect on their greatest weakness. How...original.

What avant garde, thought provoking questions will people in a decade ask as a
reaction to present interviewing trends?

Actually I think that question is a candidate for its own answer, now that I
think about it...this is like borrowing cocktail party discussion for
interviewing.

------
Avshalom
This is just "what's you're biggest weakness" for people who think they're
interesting.

~~~
ericb
Exactly!

According to the article, "most people think they are heretical, but are
actually mainstream" \-- that includes _the interviewer_!

Any candidate smart enough to have heretical beliefs is probably also smart
enough to know that the beliefs are heretical _because they are unpopular_ and
voicing those opinions to someone who, by the odds, most likely isn't
heretical, but _thinks they are_ , can only be a negative for your hiring
prospects.

~~~
wallace_f
>can only be a negative

Your argument is noy exactly true. If the value of finding a similarly open-
minded individual outweighs the low probability* of finding it, then it makes
sense.

 _Put another way if given a utility function with terms (utility of open
minded individual)_ (probability of OMI) > 1 then it is rational.

~~~
ericb
I'll concede that, and also that my phrasing is off -- it should be "is most
likely a negative."

All that being the case, there's still a certain irony to this chapter in
Thiel's book.

Thiel thinks that thinking different on god or the existence of god is a
terrible answer, even though it often means someone has a heretical belief vs.
perhaps their parents and potentially the bulk of society.

His justifications for _why_ this is a bad answer are flimsy, and seemingly
the only reason he thinks this is because _he agrees with mainstream
thinking._

This proves the danger of answering the question--the spirit it is received,
even _in book form_ from the very person advocating it, is judgment of the
answer and an underlying preference for mainstream thinking.

------
iainmerrick
A comment on the format rather than the content: it’s weird how this article
includes what look like pull-quotes, but are actually embedded tweets by the
author saying the same stuff that’s in the article.

I’ve seen that style used when quoting other people’s tweets, but exclusively
quoting yourself that way just seems strange!

~~~
phoe-krk
This tends to provide more context by means of twitter comments. You can click
the tweet under a particular quotation and see the discussion that happened
underneath it.

~~~
iainmerrick
Why would I care what replies random Twitter users made? If you want to
highlight a particular conversation thread, by all means, link to that
(probably via one of the many Twitter thread collation apps).

~~~
phoe-krk
Some people enjoy reading such conversations. You may simply not be one of
them; that's fine.

------
seanpquig
> If someone answers the question with a mainstream view, it’s possible that
> they just aren’t self-aware enough to know a view is well-held. To be self-
> aware means you ask questions of yourself, such as “how many other people
> also have this view that I think I alone hold?”

Is this really a characteristic of self awareness? Seems more like awareness
of thoughts, trends, and opinions of others/society.

It's almost like the ability to answer this question perfectly, requires
intimate knowledge of widely held beliefs/trends which may in turn have the
opposite effect of selecting for people hyper aware of trends and others'
ideas rather than those more deeply immersed in their own individual work,
ideas and experience.

------
sillysaurusx
My own answer: "Most traditional graphics programmers are wasting their time.
AI renderers will replace all the techniques we use today, not merely augment
the techniques. A graphics engine in 20 years will look _nothing_ like current
codebases."

I'm referring to cutting-edge engines. There will always be space for stylized
renderers. But photorealism? All your BRDF knowledge might as well be
raindrops in the wind.

It's unfortunate that the most interesting ideas can't be voiced publicly.
It's a good question. I don't think it's good for interviews, but it's a good
way to meet interesting people.

~~~
djmips
Rendering already has turned over several times. Graphics programmers from the
past already 'wasted their time'. Techniques have been replaced. I don't think
your main hypothesis is very heretical. AI will probably take a prominent role
in all upcoming rendering tech.

------
flaque
Having an unpopular opinion that's also backed up well is rare in the
information age. If a view has evidence to support it, that evidence is
available to everyone and there will undoubtedly be communities that support
it.

Folks with heretical views tend to either have rare knowledge or to be wrong.

~~~
apta
Having some communities support it does not contradict that it can still be an
unpopular opinion. For example, consuming alcohol is a socially acceptable
practice in practically all Western nations. There are studies showing the
strong correlation between alcohol consumption and crimes, rape, homicides,
etc. yet people are still willing to continue the practice because "it's fun".

~~~
beatgammit
So, would this view then be considered "heretical"?

> Alcohol should be more strictly controlled than marijuana because it has
> greater potential for harm.

It's true and bucks the mainstream, but it's highly unpopular and will likely
annoy the interviewer if they like to drink. However, it's not _that_
heretical since it's backed by sound research, it's just unpopular and
potentially in violation of the 21st amendment.

Whether something is heretical depends on the interviewer, and whether a
heretical opinion will impact your chances of being hired also depends on the
interviewer. That seems unfair and puts the candidate in an uncomfortable
position.

~~~
flaque
> Whether something is heretical depends on the interviewer, and whether a
> heretical opinion will impact your chances of being hired also depends on
> the interviewer.

I agree a lot with this. It's not crazy for someone in San Francisco to
suggest we should ban or severely limit cars, but saying this to the rest of
the US might be considered heretical.

Similarly, saying that death is wrong and we should be focusing scientific
achievements on life extension and immortality might be entirely normal in SF,
but wildly heretical elsewhere.

"Heretical _where_?" should always be the follow up question

------
mnm1
No one who wants the job and isn't an idiot would answer this truthfully as
most answers would be misunderstood and in many cases would lead one to not
get the job. It's one of the stupidest interview questions in a sea of stupid
interview questions, one that reveals absolutely nothing about whether a
candidate would be good for the job. It reveals a lot of information unrelated
to how the candidate will perform that can be used to discriminate against and
not hire the candidate: aka a "cultural fit" reason to discriminate and not
hire.

------
timoth3y
The general idea behind the question is brilliant, but I doubt its usefulness
as an interview question.

When I read that in his book, my first thought was how I would answer it in an
interview, and I think the unstated subtext to the question is:

"What important truth do very few people agree with you on that is big enough
to feel important, but I will not feel threatened or offended by?”

"What heretical views you have?" is a great question to ask a friend over a
beer, but as an interview question, it's the liberal arts version of those
horrid interview puzzles.

~~~
beatgammit
Agreed. In an interview, I'm trying to present the best possible version of
myself so I can make a favorable impression. I'll likely not share my non-
mainstream religious, political, or socioeconomic views in a professional
setting (I try to avoid such subjects at work since they're usually off topic
and tend to ruffle feathers), and technical views are much more nuanced and
difficult to come up with on the fly (e.g. an "original" view on code
formatting).

Once I know more about the company, I know what types of answers will be
useful. There's only so much I can glean from the company website, and for
larger companies, it's even less clear where I'd end up working.

For example, a rant about how strict work hours will likely result in a poorer
product (due to poor employee satisfaction) doesn't make sense in a company
where being available for emergencies is more important than delivering
features, but it does in an R&D role that's more creative and less results
oriented. My input depends on the needs of the company, and I'm not going to
try to force a solution that was designed for a very different company.

So, I'm going to be more conservative in such situations, which isn't the
outcome the interviewer expects.

I much prefer situational questions, perhaps based on my prior experience. For
example, maybe something like:

> Give an example where your input changed the direction your team went on a
> project. Or alternatively, describe an instance where a team member changed
> your mind and lead to an improved end result. Ideally, this should be an
> instance where existing processes were ignored and ended in a better result.

I think that gets at the heart of what the interviewer is looking for. If the
candidate can at least recognize when a better solution presents itself,
they're likely capable of thinking outside the box. Discussing the situation
can help shed more light on it.

------
abbadadda
Is it just me or is this post riddled with grammatical or spelling errors? Or
just omission of words or backwards logic:

> One learns quickly in life that it is never fun to be unpopular. Everyone
> has felt it at some point in their life. Most people never want to feel it
> again and so they go against the grain.

Why would most people go against the grain if they never wanted to feel
unpopular again?

------
timkam
First of all, is there any evidence that this question is predictive?
Secondly, the article is celebrating this question (which certainly is
creative and somewhat intriguing) in a way that seems to be weirdly
inconsistent: you ask me about a heretical view I have. In favor of the
question, let's assume that it's a view related to the
industry/product/whatever I am supposed to work with. Now, if most people
disagree with my view, how likely is it that you will agree? This assumes both
you and I possess a secret truth. You, supposedly an influential business
leader, want to keep this truth a secret, or fail to convince others of the
truth. This just seems bogus. If I succeed at answering this question in a way
you like, isn't it more likely that I make something up to cater to your
inflated ego? If there's no evidence that this question works, my line of
reasoning is just as good as the one provided in the article.

~~~
sillysaurusx
_Now, if most people disagree with my view, how likely is it that you will
agree?_

I think this is the spot where your logic stopped working.

The idea is that you don't care whether they agree. You'll listen to opposing
arguments, of course, but the goal isn't to get them to agree. They're asking
you because they're interested.

Or at least, that's how it should work. It stops working when it becomes an
interview question.

The point is to see whether someone thinks originally. If you have opinions
you're reluctant to share among peers without wording it carefully, and you've
spent a lot of time thinking very carefully about the topic, then there's a
pretty good chance you're an interesting person to know.

EDIT: Another way to phrase it: If you give an answer that you truly believe
and that you've thought carefully about for a long time, and they disagree
loudly and immediately, then there are two possibilities: Either they have
given the topic more thought than you (which is entirely possible), or they
are less open-minded than they think they are. Both outcomes give useful
information to you.

~~~
throwawaymath
_> If you have opinions you're reluctant to share among peers without wording
it carefully, and you've spent a lot of time thinking very carefully about the
topic, then there's a pretty good chance you're an interesting person to
know._

Though we won't be able to make good on the bet, I would confidently wager a
supermajority of people who fit that criteria are not particularly interesting
to you, or any given individual for that matter.

In my experience, most people who spend a long time thinking about their
controversial beliefs aren't especially insightful or interesting to those who
disagree with them. For low hanging fruit we can just look at politics. But
even beyond that, the universe of controversial ideas is so vast that it's
unlikely a person's given muse will be compelling or insightful to other
people.

~~~
sillysaurusx
There's a reason it's the cornerstone of
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

Original thinking tends to be offensive. If you're right, you often can't go
around saying you're right. You have to keep your thoughts to yourself. And if
you have a scientific mind, you want to seek truths wherever they are.

If you get in the habit of actively trying to seek out radioactive truths,
you'll stumble on some interesting ideas eventually. And I'd love to know
anyone who genuinely makes it a habit (as opposed to doing it for social
signaling).

You're right that the majority of people wouldn't be interested, because most
people have deeply-held beliefs. Getting at original ideas requires a fluidity
that often runs against natural instincts.

~~~
throwawaymath
Yeah, I agree with the idea that if you trudge through radioactive ideas
you'll find some diamonds in the rough. But you'll have to really dig through
some radioactive crap for it; a lot of what's outside the Overton Window is
there for a reason. The fashions of an era aren't entirely arbitrary.

~~~
sillysaurusx
_a lot of what 's outside the Overton Window is there for a reason. The
fashions of an era aren't entirely arbitrary._

Believing in the theory of evolution would have placed you firmly outside the
Overton window, at the time.

------
CapmCrackaWaka
Ehhhh the responses given by this question, in my opinion, would be heavily
driven by the interviewee answering in a way they think the interviewer wants
to hear. Most people are self aware enough that they are not going to be
spewing out their _truly_ controversial views on politics/religion/whatever to
this person they barely know. You cannot say that nobody holds controversial
views when the views discussed come from job interviews, of all places...

------
mlthoughts2018
A lot of my peers are brilliant people and they know more than I do about a
wide range of topics. I want to copy their beliefs a lot of the time when I
don’t have special evidence to have my own view.

This post’s advice is extremely bad because it forces some level of optimizing
for uniqueness (very ironic this is related to Thiel’s question too, since it
plays right into Girard-style mimetic fighting to differentiate one’s self
from otherwise highly similar peers).

But uniqueness is not valuable in a vacuum. You actually need the unusual
views to be correct and valuable in some way. Merely creating some spark of
uniqueness is pretty useless and often harmful.

If someone said to me that inside their field of experience (life, or
professional or otherwise), they have sufficient reason to have an unusual
belief, but for everything else they either copy another expert they trust or
else default to conventional wisdom, that would impress me.

If someone goes out of their way to hold unusual beliefs in areas where there
is no reason to believe their judgement, that’s a sign of reckless beliefs and
immature virtue signaling.

------
willberman
I generally like a lot of what Thiel says, but people need to be very careful
about being heretical for the sake of being heretical. I find a lot of people
(myself included) have a tendency to pretend some mainstream way of doing
something is wrong for the sake of having some insight that everyone else
missed. However, there is generally, at a minimum, some wisdom of the crowds.

------
khendron
If I answer "That's a really dumb question!" am I being heretical or
conventional?

------
empath75
It’s a dumb question, because heretical is a meaningless term in the context
of the tech industry.

To the extent that it ‘works’ it’s probably going to screen for self-important
assholes. Which, given that it’s a peter Thiel question...

------
Caligula
This is blog spam. He even quotes himself. Please flag this blog spam.

------
pkilgore
This post _assumes that this question is predictive_ , which is something I'd
much rather see established first...

~~~
twelve40
It doesn't just assume that, it throws a massive celebration party for that
question without any basis for it whatsoever. Other than some self-absorbed
opinions.

------
aazaa
> “what is a heretical view you have?”

This is a better question to ask oneself with an open mind that to pose to a
job candidate.

No heretic is an island. The heretical idea stands in opposition to some
convention or norm. Unless the interviewer is intimately familiar with the
norm (and self-aware enough to know the difference between convention and
heresy), s/he won't be capable of judging whether the response is indeed
heretical.

When asked to oneself, the question forces exploration of the idea itself and
the norms you believe you stand in opposition to. You might even need to ask
around to gauge how heretical your view really is. Maybe you'll give a talk or
write an essay - or just post a response in a discussion thread in HN.

However you explore the question, the answer might be surprising. At least
I've been sometimes very surprised by ideas I thought were very odd not
getting the reaction I thought they would.

------
thimkerbell
"What important truth do very few people agree with you on?"

It's very hard to come up with a right answer, since if it's ostensibly
unpopular, you won't know how many agree with you.

(I have not read the article.)

------
motohagiography
If Thiel asked me these I'd answer, but some rando recruiter or HR person, I'd
just answer how much I admired Nelson Mandela, because that's the answer to
every HR question anyway.

------
BenoitP
Here's my truth very few people agree with me on:

A mass of 1kg of lead actually weighs -in standard conditions- more than a
mass of 1kg of feathers.

So far, it has been 6 times I've had an argument with people over it.

~~~
ncmncm
What, meaning if you weigh out equal amounts of feathers and lead, you end up
with more feathers?

Buoyancy?

~~~
BenoitP
Buoyancy: exactly!

I'll admit that phrasing it shortly is sort of misleading, but it does still
carry a precise meaning: we're talking of "a mass of 1kg" (in the
gravitational pull sense) vs "weighs" (the act of measuring the resultant
force at rest on a scale, which has to compensate for the gravitational pull
as well as buoyancy).

"standard conditions" generally means 1kPa, the density of lead is 11.34
g/cm^3, the density of keratin (which feathers are made of) is 1.32 g/cm^3,
the density of air is 0.001275 g/cm^3; which give us a difference in Buoyancy
amounting to:

0.85 g [1]

Which is not that low a difference compared to 1kg.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=%281kg+%2F+%281.32+g%2Fcm%5E...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%281kg+%2F+%281.32+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+-+1kg+%2F+%2811.34+g%2Fcm%5E3%29%29+*+0.0012754+g%2Fcm%5E3+in+g&oq=%281kg+%2F+%281.32+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+-+1kg+%2F+%2811.34+g%2Fcm%5E3%29%29+*+0.0012754+g%2Fcm%5E3+in+g)

~~~
ncmncm
I have found Wolfram Alpha deeply disappointing on the topic of buoyancy.

------
Causality1
>It’s a great question because almost everyone cannot come up with an answer
that most people they know do not agree with.

I would argue it might be the case that people can't come up with an opinion
they're willing to share with the interviewer. If you believe something truly
taboo, like that children should be sexually active or a certain race or
religion or nationality deserves to be exterminated you're not going to just
tell someone because they asked.

------
yodsanklai
Actually I was thinking about this recently (an unpopular opinion). I keep
"fighting" with friends over "alternative medicine". I'm surprised at how many
educated people (even with a scientific background) believe in alternative
medicine and aren't aware of the many biases that mislead them...

------
sings
Either... Kiwi fruit is best savoured with the skin on, after having
thoroughly washed it. ...or... Time is actually speeding up, which is why
everyone feels like time speeds up as they get older.

The only reason this is better than “what is your biggest weakness?” is that
there is slightly more scope for creativity.

------
Simulacra
As an undergraduate in political science I declared that the United States
invaded Iraq because of Iran. My foreign policy professor told me I was
misguided and blinded by war no gering rhetoric. Eight years later I got my
PhD on that same thesis.

------
a_t48
I have no problem speaking up when I think something needs to be said (if
anything, I have the opposite problem), but I would not be comfortable
answering this question in an interview.

------
ElDji
Perfect use case for Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit.

------
lend000
Interesting that, almost by definition, most of the top HN comments on this
article are very critical of the idea. As if proving what the article claims:
most people do not push the intellectual boundaries of their social
environment.

Not to say that some of the comments are completely unfounded -- for example,
this question requires a special interviewer, too, who must be able to contain
their biases against the potentially very unique (supposedly good) responses
they will receive, which may be diametrically opposed to their own views.

------
toohotatopic
I guess it is not a coincidence that this is a perfect interview question: By
construction people cannot cram 'right answers' from some preparation website
because the answer would become repetitive. Applicants have to reveal their
own original thought or at least prepare by talking to somebody with original
ideas. At worst you get somebody who cannot come up with good ideas on his own
but who at least can recognize good ideas.

------
ncmncm
I would rather ask, "What do you know that nobody else seems to know?"

------
cagenut
on a related note, I find very few things more predictive in how much I'm
going to like a person than the side they take in thiel v gawker.

------
throwaway724
Ehhhhhhhh. Auren ran one of the shadiest companies in recent history (Rapleaf)
and he's discussing Thiel, who in my opinion was completely in the wrong w/r/t
Gawker and is incredibly thin skinned and petty for someone who talks about
the things that he does.

The core point is correct: you want (for lack of better phrasing) "out of the
box" thinkers in your leadership roles, particularly in the early stages. But
I would take either of those two as a model with the biggest grain of salt
possible; you can be courageous and out of the box without being insanely
unethical or a vampire-like dick, respectively.

~~~
prepend
> who in my opinion was completely in the wrong w/r/t Gawker

I have a different opinion for four reasons.

I appreciate Thiel’s long term thinking and just the effectiveness of the
plot. That’s rare and neat, I think.

But I also think it’s right because Gawker was a plague on society with its
gossipy, trash journalism. We are better off as a society without the type of
articles that out people because editors don’t like them or don’t like their
politics.

Specifically, they were in the wrong with Hogan and what they did was
heartless.

Finally, Gawker died legally. No laws were broken. Thiel had beef, for
whatever reason and he used the law. While I don’t think Gawker is anywhere
near more useful and professional news outlets (eg, NYT or Post) I think if
other newsmakers break the law in such a way, they should be treated exactly
the same way.

~~~
femiagbabiaka
Gawker reported on Weinstein at a time when other publications wouldn’t for
fear of reprisal. We are not better off as a society when billionaires with
histories of poor morality can arbitrarily destroy media companies. Get a
grip.

~~~
CrazyStat
He didn't arbitrarily destroy it, and other media companies are generally not
in danger of the same fate as Gawker.

Gawker was _exceptionally_ stupid both in their reporting and in court, joking
(so they say) that they would post a sex tape of a child as long as it was
over the age of four. That doesn't play well with jurors. They had no respect
for any concept of personal privacy. We are absolutely better off as a society
without them, and without any other media companies that behave in a similar
shitty manner.

Being a media company is not and should not be a shield from civil lawsuits or
prosecution. Media companies _should_ be in danger of being sued to death if
they behave as badly as Gawker did.

~~~
kick
Everything Gawker did fell under the First Amendment, and so they _should not_
be in danger of being sued to death if they behave as badly as Gawker did. The
entire point of the Constitution is to protect essential liberties. Get rid of
the Constitution, and we descend into an authoritarian state.

~~~
esyir
They violated his right to privacy. You don't get to use one right to violate
another without consequences.

~~~
kick
The First Amendment comes before all others, which is why it's first.

"Oh no, a politician said behind closed doors he's going to nuke COUNTRY! We
can't write about that, though, we'll get sued!"

Anything that restricts the first breaks democracy, your claim is Step One for
any fascist uprising.

------
robocat
Another benefit is that the interviewer has a chance to learn a new uncommon
truth. Perhaps something that can be invested in. I think Soros said he loved
to find mistakes in his own thinking, especially if it was a mistake others
were making, since he could then use that knowledge to invest.

