
The Competition Myth - doneel
http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2015/02/02/competition-myth/
======
stickfigure
I dutifully read the CS183 class notes as they were posted, and agree with 99%
of the content. This seems like an ultra-abridged version, with a couple
bizarre quirks:

 _" God does not exist”...is untrue_

 _If you’re questioning Darwinism...you will get in trouble_

Seriously? I am disappointed.

~~~
rabbyte
Disappointed that he doesn't agree with you? Why?

~~~
stickfigure
Disappointed because these statements taken together seem to suggest that
Thiel is a creationist. The best analogy is probably Kary Mullins. I like a
true iconoclast more than most, but at some point contrarian beliefs just
venture into inanity. Past achievements do not excuse present stupidity -
although, sadly, they often enable it.

~~~
rabbyte
I can't help but think you're proving his point. The question he posed was
"What important truth do very few people agree with you on?" and the relevant
quote preceding the reference to God is this:

> The reason it is hard to answer in the interview context is that the correct
> answer is one that the person asking the question is unlikely to agree with.

The question is personal. There's no wrong way to answer it yet we proceed as
though there are only a few right answers. How does that happen? Well, what
might happen if I were to give an answer that sounded like a creationists
answer? You might be disappointed, associate my thinking with Kary Mullis, and
call into question my intelligence as a whole. Conformity in this case gives
me a more favorable option as I can answer your question in a way that has a
high probability of being well received at the expense of an honest existence.

Thoughts?

~~~
stickfigure
Some questions do only have a few right answers.

I'm perfectly willing to grant him climate change - climate is very
complicated and despite present scientific consensus, it is very possible that
future discoveries will turn our understanding of the subject upside down. On
the other hand, the theory of natural selection is firmly established by
evidence (by experiment, even!) and any future corrections will come as
Einstein's relativity came to Newton's mechanics - refinement not
invalidation. To believe otherwise puts you on the same rational footing as
HIV denialists, 9/11 truthers, birthers, and alien abductees.

It's not enough to be an iconoclast, you need to be an iconoclast with good
critical thinking skills.

~~~
rabbyte
The contentious bit for me is that it's convenient for you to grant him
climate change because your understanding of that issue is in close proximity
to his understanding. Breaking conformity would require a willingness to hear
out ideas that make you uncomfortable as well. Beyond that I totally agree
with you.

~~~
stickfigure
This really has nothing to do with me or anything subjective to me. In
objective terms, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is significantly
less well established than the theory of natural selection. This is not to say
that climate change theories are not strong, but natural selection is almost
as firmly established as Newton's law of gravitation. Anyone with a microscope
and a petri dish can demonstrate it.

Crazy ideas do not make me uncomfortable. Crazy _people_ make me uncomfortable
because you never know when god/the prophet/the voices/etc are going to say
"kill all the green eyed ones".

------
swatow
Interesting ideas, but the economics are bogus. Saying that successful
companies avoid competition is like saying Joyce Gracie avoided competition in
the early days of the UFC. Being so much better than you opponents that you
beat then easily is not avoiding competition.

When people praise competition they are praising the conditions under which
all people are able to complete for the same market ex ante. If one company
develops a technology that renders others unable to compete, then they become
a monopolist ex post. But it is the ex ante competition that allowed then to
enter that market in the first place

~~~
coldtea
> _Interesting ideas, but the economics are bogus. Saying that successful
> companies avoid competition is like saying Joyce Gracie avoided competition
> in the early days of the UFC. Being so much better than you opponents that
> you beat then easily is not avoiding competition._

Err, successful companies avoid competition avoid competitions in lots of
other ways than "Being so much better than [their] opponents that [they] beat
then easily".

Those range from:

1) buying out any startup that might threaten them in the long run

2) buyout out political influnce and having laws passed that stiffle
competition

3) bullying their customers or suppliers (e.g. Microsoft making specific
demands from OEM vendors in the nineties, "or else...")

to...

4) downright murdering business rivals in less fortunate countries (Latin
America, Balkans, etc).

~~~
forthefuture
I consider companies competing for the ability to do those things. Rockefeller
didn't just buy all the oil, he competed the shit out of everyone and then
bought all the oil.

~~~
coldtea
> _I consider companies competing for the ability to do those things._

Yeah, just not in the traditional "free market" economic view of competition
narration.

Instead in a "harmful for honest businessmen, jungle law" way.

------
squirrelsort
"Answers like “God does not exist” or even “The education system is screwed
up” (the first one is untrue, the second one is true) are bad answers because
they are conventional answers."

"If you’re questioning Darwinism or climate change, you will get in trouble."

kthxbye..

~~~
patzerhacker
Really, in America, "God does not exist" is conventional wisdom? According to
a 2007 Pew Research study[1], 71% of Americans have a belief in god. So if
that's "conventional wisdom" then Peter Thiel's definition of conventional is
about the same as my thoughts on PayPal's definition of "fair dispute
resolution".

Questioning the theory of evolution (hint, it's not an -ism because it's not
an ideological position, unless we're talking about the widely discredited
concept of 'social darwinism') or the data on climate change is perfectly
fine, but if you'd rather sling rumor and innuendo instead of backing up your
claims with evidence then don't be surprised when people think you're a crank.

[1] [http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-
landscape...](http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-
study-key-findings.pdf), full study at
[http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-
landscape...](http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-
study-full.pdf)

------
moab
I wonder why he deliberately chose to bat the hornet's nest with the "God does
not exist" line. I always thought he was a very unassuming christian.

That being said, he doesn't really push anything new here - we've seen plenty
of anti-college rhetoric, and the anti-competition theme strikes me as
contradictory to his person (even today). Willfulness, deliberation - all the
qualities that make even a 'heterodox' person successful all come from some
innate obsession which can really be cast as a sort of personal competition.
One doesn't create something for nothing - even if the end goal is to have
created the thing, or to have done it for it's own sake - even this desire is
born out of some inner need that can be cast as competition. I think what
Peter and a lot of other leaders in the valley are pushing these days is the
ability to be cautiously obsessive. What he calls anti-competition and anti-
conformity is really just the ability to stick to one's vision despite initial
signals and hardships that from the world that might make the greedily-
optimizing man cast his die on a table where the odds appear better.

~~~
vacri
There are plenty of errors in the essay - the first being the idea that
competition is good for a company. It's good for _society_. Monopolies are
good for companies, to the detriment of society, which is why there are anti-
monopoly laws.

The whole essay reads as though the author's in his personal bubble, with the
walls painted with his fantasy world. One such example is his belief that
startup founders are basically Aspergers and can't hold a social connection -
and yes, he uses the weasel word 'many' rather than 'most/all', but clearly he
thinks that it's common enough to be an 'indictment on society'.

Then he finished up with silly libertarian extremism; hand-wringing over why
it's harder to develop pharmaceuticals (where a bad product can kill people or
leave them in lifelong pain) over a video game company (where a bad product
takes a few dollars out of your pocket and bores you for an hour), because
"ebil gummint regulations".

~~~
cousin_it
I'm not a libertarian, but it seems to me that making drug certification take
15 years and a billion dollars kills more people than any bad drug ever could.
If you disagree, please point me to _anyone, anywhere_ doing a cost-benefit
analysis of preventing bad drugs vs discouraging new drugs, and concluding
that current FDA policies are even remotely close to optimal. From where I
sit, it looks like these policies are over-cautious because deaths from bad
drugs are much more visible to the public than deaths from non-existent drugs,
even though the latter outnumber the former by far.

~~~
vacri
I'm so tired of people arguing that drugs are only bad if people die from
them. Why is something considered bad only if it has a body count? I guess
thalidomide isn't an issue in your book, because even though people end up
without limbs for life because of it, they're not dead so it doesn't count.

 _and concluding that current FDA policies are even remotely close to
optimal._

HOLY FUCK, what a MASSIVE rephrasing of what I said. You're going to need
Mjolnir to force those words into my mouth. Where the fuck did I say the FDA
system was optimal? I said comparing pharmaceuticals to video games and
demanding that they have the same level of regulation is stupid.

It's clear you have zero idea of what happens when pharmaceuticals go bad;
anyone that talks of bad drugs only in terms of dead people really, _really_
needs to educate themselves on the topic. The idea of doing that study you
demand is nonsensical. I'm also not sure of why I'm the one who has to present
it; if you want to change the status quo, you need to find your own
references.

And if you did actually know anything about pharma, you'd know that 'wonder
drugs' pop up all the time, only to have crippling side effects found later in
testing - sometimes the 'wonder drug' actually turns out to be horrific
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs)
has a few - and this is for released drugs). The problem is that "the feds
won't release wonder drug X" is a better headline than "unreleased drug X has
horrible side-effects, but they were found before the drug was okayed".

It's also worth mentioning that pharma started out with 'video game' levels of
regulation, and it was the life-altering errors that brought in regulation.

TL;DR The FDA process may not be optimal, but they're a shitload better than
no regulation.

------
brz
IMO competition is what drives our species. We've evolved this far because we
would have been extinct if we didn't and we had to compete with other species
for it. Same goes for today's world. On the other hand, competition is one of
the most powerful motivational tools for many people. I wouldn't be where I am
today if there was no competition in my life.

~~~
antocv
Look at you, your legs, your nose, your fleshy hands, exposed ears ands eyes,
soft belly. All soft targets, easily killed, unlike a snake, rhineceros or any
animal with at least claws or fangs.

You wouldnt survive a week or two if you had to compete with other animals and
other humans.

Humans are the way we are because of co-operation rather than competition.

Humans are group living animals, we do not compete within the group or outside
of the group - we co-operate so everyone, the group, can survive.

~~~
cbd1984
Trivially, every species is in competition with every other for finite
resources to use to perpetuate their gene line.

> Look at you, your legs, your nose, your fleshy hands, exposed ears ands
> eyes, soft belly. All soft targets, easily killed, unlike a snake,
> rhineceros or any animal with at least claws or fangs.

Right. Which is why we have complex language and hands capable of fine motor
skills and an innate ability to band together in groups to fight off
everything else.

Humans doubled down on the "big complex brain" strategy, then doubled again,
then kept doubling until we were making marks to keep track of who owned how
many cattle. It was a very short step, evolutionarily speaking, from that to
the smallpox vaccine, Neil Armstrong, and the _Eroica_ symphony. It was hardly
a step at all, in fact.

Our brains were so successful that we didn't die of not having claws, fangs,
or the ability to reliably have multiple offspring at once. In fact, human
heads are pushing up on the size limits of what women can safely push out of
the birth canal without endangering either mother or child.

In our way, our competitive strategy is just as specialized as a poison dart
frog's: Whereas the frog is too toxic to eat, we're too smart to take down.

 _The fact a lot of our smarts comes down to the ability to cooperate within
the species does not negate the fact we 're competing with other species._ Not
so much now, perhaps, but I'd consider our competition with the polio virus to
be rather heated. (Fairly one-sided, but heated.)

~~~
antocv
I dont see how your post is arguing against what I wrote in parent.

You're not so smart so you cant be taken down by yourself, your brain doesnt
protect you from claws and fangs. Only as a cooperative group are we strong.
Not when competing, but when cooperating.

Our brain is the cooperation centre. It has this capacity to feel with others,
be it animals or humans.

~~~
cbd1984
> Not when competing, but when cooperating.

Cooperating to do what? To compete against other species and groups of humans!

~~~
antocv
You're showing a very clear sign of stubbornness. An state of mind which is
unwilling and possibly unable to see the world from a different perspective. A
closed mind. Go check it up.

To answer your question; no, not to compete, but to find the answer to the
meaning of all life and explore every corner and creek of this common planet,
and together, to enjoy that.

~~~
cbd1984
You're projecting your emotions on to me. What would it take for me to change
your mind?

Oh and good luck exploring the world if your species goes extinct because it
got outcompeted.

------
Tinned_Tuna
This is quite bogus.

Competition is a very real, and very lucrative phenomenon.

A famous & classic counter-example of how being more competitive than your
peers wins out is Toyota.

Toyota won out in the 80s and 90s because their cars were priced more
competitively, and were of a higher quality. They didn't make fundamentally
different products, they just did it _better_.

One company practically euthanised both the US and the UK's car manufacturing
industry, by producing the same product better.

Similarly, Google did web search, just like Ask Jeeves, AltaVista, Yahoo! They
became dominant by doing it _better_ \-- by offering better results, faster,
and therefore out-competing their peers.

For yet another example, take Apple's return to fame. They did it by taking
the portable music player, something ostensibly already done by Sony and
Creative, and making it significantly better than their competitors. They also
sold an image to go with it, but competing on terms of marketing could be
considered a valid competition strategy.

Consider Tesla; although the story isn't played out yet, Tesla is looking
strong. Not because they provide electric cars (though that helps), but
because the cars they provide are more economical, comfortable, safe, and so
on.

Ironically, one of Theil's own businesses is a counter-example to his own
claim: PayPal. We could already get money from one person to another, or from
ourselves to merchants. PayPal just did it better, and therefore out-competed
the banks for consumer and SME money transfers.

Time and again, businesses win, not by being the first in the field; but by
looking at an existing field critically, and considering how to improve it.
They then enter the field and out-compete the incumbents, beating them at
their own game.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I think the point of this piece is, very good business out-compete the
incumbents _and then_ go so far ahead that they become de-facto monopoly
thanks to quality. As correctly pointed out in the article, Google did that to
search. I'd also say they did that to webmail - as much as GMail has its UX
problems, it's still miles ahead of everyone else wrt. UI and spam filtering.
And Tesla, since you mentioned it, entered the market with one of the best
cars available, electric or not, and it barely has any competitors in the
electric market.

So it's not about being first, it's about being so good that you become a de-
facto monopoly.

~~~
izacus
Also by preventing any competition from forming, locking in your users and
preventing them from leaving by taking their data hostage in proprietary
services and formats, buying any possible competitors and doing price dumping
from other services to make competition entering the field economically
unviable.

As seen done by Amazon, Google, Apple and other large companies. Competition
is awesome, but unfortunately someone "winning" the race can quickly lead to
them controling enough of the market to prevent good competition from forming.

~~~
WalterBright
Look back in history a few years. Everything you said was said with utter
conviction about IBM in the 1980's, for example.

------
rcarrigan87
Conformity is more driven by our need to put food on the table(not some
egotistical peer to peer competition). I'm sure many people would love to
chase their radical notions and wear a bathing suit to work. But that will get
you fired...

This essay feels like Peter needs to step out and speak with real people who
don't have a bank account to fall back on.

More interesting question, in a post-scarcity society where everyone has their
basic needs met, how does this effect conformity?

------
vdaniuk
Why some blogspam with verbatim copies out of Thiel's book is upvoted?

~~~
desdiv
Did you miss the "By Peter Thiel" part right below the title?

------
ArekDymalski
I'm really surprised that someone like Peter Thiel interpretes competition
only as conformistic imitation. Business competition is about business results
not the product itself, so the tactics for competing are many.

------
shmerl
This logic quickly turns sour when fear of competition translates into all
kind of crooked practices to prevent it. Monopoly isn't good, no. Because it's
easily abused.

I agree with the rest though. Progress requires chaotic element of "thinking
out of the box".

------
bdowling
This stuck out:

"Whatever you think of the morality of nuclear weapons, building an atomic
bomb is a far harder undertaking than building a website."

I disagree, Mr. Thiel. In building an atom bomb you have the laws of nature as
a guide. Those laws are fixed ahead of time and do not change through the
project. When you are doing something wrong, there is exactly one ultimate
authority which will tell you so unequivocally. That kind of absolute feedback
has value.

On the other hand, making a web site? No one knows what it should look like
ahead of time because it doesn't exist yet. The managers also don't know, and
the feedback they give about the project along the way will be either
intentionally or unintentionally misleading, misinformed, and wrong. They may
be trying to spare someone's feelings by giving some positive feedback. Nature
doesn't have those kinds of problems with perpetuating false information.

~~~
TeMPOraL
On the other hand, getting an a-bomb right requires actually following those
rules. Websites are fashion. You can throw shit together randomly and still
have a perfectly successful website - especially if you get your
sales/marketing team involved in pushing it down people's throats. Nature
doesn't tolerate bullshit. Web industry is in big part built on it.

