

Peter Thiel explains his own opinions - yummyfajitas
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257531/back-future-peter-thiel-interview?page=1

======
kenjackson
Interesting this appears in the National Review. I wrote this a couple of
months ago:

 _The conservative right has started a grassroots movement to make traditional
measures of intellect and achievement worthy of less distinction. A PhD? Who
cares? Nobel Prize in Chemistry? Chemistry isn't that big of a deal, anyone
can do it. Plain talkin' people who struggle with things like math and science
-- those are the real intellects. Because being an intellect is being someone
who can just relate to the every day man. Everything else is just a "hobby"
that is no more worthy of distinction than being good at Call of Duty.

Over 2011 expect a full court press on this. Academia, scholarship, science,
math, etc... will all be attacked as not particularly interesting. Plain
spoken populism will be the new metric for brilliance and the best this
country has to offer._

Peter Thiel is more subtle, but the subtext is there. Fully expect that this
debate ends up being very partisan. The conservatives pushing the banner that
college is a bubble. Small business is where real America is.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2135539>

~~~
pjscott
I think Thiel made it very clear that this isn't about education (as such) and
it isn't about the endless mainstream culture wars. It's about figuring out
what people should do with their lives, given their particular set of goals. A
lot of people take on large student loans and go to college because they feel
like they're supposed to, and the debt prevents them from taking financial
risk at a time in their lives when it could be the most useful to them. Other
people do really well for themselves; one of my friends graduated with an
electrical engineering degree, got married, and got a steady job in a nice
part of Colorado, and seems to be doing just fine.

One-size-fits-all recipes for life tend not to fit very well. People have
different desires, different histories, different interests, and different
circumstances -- why would we argue that everybody should (or shouldn't) go to
college? That just seems so limited, more like political signaling than any
serious attempt to improve things. There need to be more options that people
take seriously. I'm happy just to see that people are talking about this at
all.

~~~
kenjackson
_and it isn't about the endless mainstream culture wars_

Given that this interview takes place in a publication that is largely focused
on the mainstream culture wars, you're going to have to do a much better job
convincing me. Especially since everything he says in his interview reads like
a conservative culture war advocate. He evokes Milton Friedman for heavens
sake!

I think the fact that you agree with his position, which is fine, may cloud
you to why the National Review wants to run an interview with him.

And couple this with the fact that I've seen this coming from various people
on the right, makes me all the more skeptical. Even the person who posted the
story is YummyFajitas - an extremely conservative HN member.

~~~
pjscott
If I'm reading this right, you seem to be pointing to everything _except_ the
literal meaning of his words, whereas I'm taking what he wrote at face value,
and ignoring the political context. Would you say that's more or less
accurate?

I may be naive to be so trusting about the lack of hidden intentions, but as
far as I can tell, Peter Thiel is hard to categorize politically and deserves
the benefit of the doubt.

~~~
kenjackson
No, I'm referring to the literal meaning of his words and the context of the
words. I'm not sure how you can escape the context anymore than you can escape
the literal meaning of the words.

It's the National frickin' Review. That's like getting a newsletter from
Emily's List and thinking an interview in there is just about the literal
words of the interview. The publication has such an overt agenda that ignoring
that agenda is missing a big part of the message.

And couple that with the actual text of Thiel's writing makes it obvious.

As I noted a couple of months ago this was going to be the centerpiece of the
right for 2011 going into 2012. Most of this is partisan, although some is
nationalistic. The reason David Brooks, for example, is pushing this new
humanism (when did emotional humanism become conservative, right?) is because
its clear that is the world flattens the US will likely be in trouble
academically/intellectually. As a country we lack discipline, but we do have
an abundance of "emotion".

In any case Thiel might deserve the benefit of the doubt if he avoided the
National Review, but he gave them an interview that would make Jim Demint
smile.

------
abstractbill
_... not like the present, where technology is largely seen as irrelevant and
specifically as bad_

I don't have the feeling this is actually true, but of course I might just
have managed to surround myself with others who don't believe it either. I
wonder how much of the general population _really_ shares this view. People
certainly seem to like the _products_ of technology, like new smartphones and
such.

~~~
anateus
But think about how products are positioned. I think his comparison with the
50s is a bit simplistic, but think about a product advertisement from those
times: "This is the widget OF THE FUTURE!". It would be presented very
differently now, much more about how it's the cool and chic thing. From a
culture of the future to a culture of the past.

As an side: he very carefully managed to avoid dropping into the quagmire of
"it was so much better back then" by addressing a specific aspect, for which
I'm glad. There's plenty to dislike about US culture in the 50's as far as the
kind of forward thinking going on ("I'll have a jetpack to fly to work and the
missuss will have a jet kitchen to use while she stays at home and raises our
jet-children").

