[kenko]

There's nothing admirable about "going against the grain" in itself. Probably most people in the upper echelons of tech wealth don't think it's a great idea to deport Muslims, and don't support Trump. I see no reason to admire someone for having a different opinion on that matter just because it's different.

There are lots of ways to "go against the grain" in the way you point out. You could be an unthinking dogmatist. Nothing would change the way you feel, not even the censure of your peers. (Is Thiel being censured? Sure, by Pinboard on twitter. By his peers? Not that I can see. His richy-rich pals all still love him, AFAICT.) Is there something admirable about having your head in the ground? Not really---and I don't think that, on the broader social level, we tend to applaud people who still think gay sex is shameful and should be illegal, even though, you know, they really go against the grain.

You could be, say, a modern Cato. But Cato is admirable not just because he fell on his sword but because he fell on his sword out of devotion to an admirable ideal.

I see no reason, incidentally, to believe your claim that "Thiel stands alone in his strength to go against the grain". If other people aren't going against the grain, it might be that they think the grain is largely going in the right direction already, and not that they lack the strength to go against it. And, on the other hand, you have to pay a little attention to threads about diversity of race or gender to find a lot of people with the strength to go against the grain. Guess what: the grain they go against, Thiel goes with.

[pm90]

Beautifully explained. There certainly is a lot of Groupthink in Silicon Valley, but that doesn't extend to everything.

In Thiel's case, it unfortunately seems like he's turned into one of those rich people who is so far away from how most people live that he does not understand the consequences of some of his ideas. A common problem with the elite: although self-made elites usually have their past to reflect on and make better informed decisions (unlike e.g. the Koch brothers)

[falsestprophet]

Why do you think he doesn't understand the consequences of his ideas?

[pm90]

Because a pursuit to the extreme of any ideology is a symptom of mind obsessed with perfection and fanatic belief. In the case of Thiel, its his libertarian beliefs.

Now, I don't want to hijack this thread into what is wrong with extreme libertarian thinking (or extreme adherence to any philosophy). You're question was why I thought he doesn't understand the consequences of his ideas: this is why I think that.

[nolepointer]

Wanting to halt immigration from countries with radical Islamic ties != deporting Muslims

[gallonofmilk]

ssh logic not welcome here... move along

[diyorgasms]

I would assume ssh and its underlying logic are welcome here. What I assume is unwelcome is advocating religious tests in a secular state.

[gallonofmilk]

what if instead of saying "Muslims coming from location X", it were "people coming from location X"?

the issue is the same, we don't know how to properly vet these people, nor do we know if they want to assimilate (big problem if they don't)... personally I think given the world we live in, that is logical. I also don't think it should be permanent and we should encourage those that want to join America and all it has to offer so long as we can do our best to ensure their sincerity...

[SixSigma]

> The eccentric investor is not like anyone else in tech. By Kara Swisher @karaswisher

> ... And many of those who like him personally and call him a "dear friend" are even perplexed, going as far as not talking to him of late because of his Trump support. "I’ve tried," sighed one such friend, who described a number of colleagues trying to pull him off the Trump train, including PayPal Mafia family member Reid Hoffman.

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/21/12241648/peter-thiel-trump-s...

[exstudent2]

> There's nothing admirable about "going against the grain" in itself.

There is if you think the grain is a corrupt and unfair system that needs dismantling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.

I would consider myself to have overlapping social thoughts with most liberals but it's really terrifying to me to have an absolute aggregation of media and executive power (in our industry) along one line of thinking (even if I agree with most of it!). Power needs to be distributed, not consolidated.

[kenko]

> There is if you think the grain is a corrupt and unfair system that needs dismantling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.

No, there still isn't, because you seem to have missed the "in itself" part. Even in the case you identify, what is admirable is going against a corrupt grain (and presumably, we'd want to actually make it "going against a corrupt grain in a way likely to improve matters"; corruption is multiple and going against corruption in one respect isn't necessarily to go in a less-corrupt-overall direction), not "going against the grain" in itself.

[exstudent2]

I mention it in another comment but the consolidation of power is a problem. It doesn't matter if I agree with those consolidating or not. I don't think Trump has a lot of support from the upper classes in the US. If he were to be elected he would be a weaker form of power than say Clinton being elected. That is a desirable outcome even if his policies are bad since he wouldn't be effective in rolling them out whereas Clinton would be more effective rolling out her possibly slightly less objectionable policies. There would be a greater loss to society in the latter situation.

[metheus]

Under what rubric is the more effective rollout of less objectionable policies a greater loss to society than the less effective rollout of more objectionable policies?

This dogma holds consolidation of power to be bad /in and of itself/, rather than because of a consequence, such as "consolidated power leads to suffering." If that's your opinion, fine, but it's no different than any other religion.

[exstudent2]

> Under what rubric is the more effective rollout of less objectionable policies a greater loss to society than the less effective rollout of more objectionable policies?

A small slice of a giant pie is bigger than a large slice of a tiny pie?

[metheus]

Ok, I understand. You literally mean that both of them will only introduce objectionable policies, not that "less objectionable" might mean, in some cases, "good."

I still don't see the outcome you predict.

TLDR; power consolidation is a risk factor that leads to actual bad policy, not something with actual, palpable negative value in and of itself. E.g. the power of the federal government to end slavery is a win in my book.

* * * *

Let's map "objectionability" onto a number line.

A neutral policy is zero. An objectionable one is on the negative side, a non-objectionable one is on the positive side. The magnitude of the objectionability or virtue yields the magnitude of the number.

I'll go with your presumption that both Clinton and Trump's policies are only found on the negative side of that line. And we'll deal with their policies in aggregate. We'll also assume that current policy is perfectly neutral, at zero:

<---------T-------------C-----0

T = Trump APV (avg policy value)

C = Clinton APV

0 = CPV (current policy value)

Let's map effectiveness to a float between 0 and 1. Simple. If Trump's policies are twice as bad as Clinton's, he has to be half as effective as she for them to equal out. Here's a little table:

APV, Effect, Total value, Who, Worse

-20, .05, -1, Trump, O

-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X

-20, .1, -2, Trump, X

-2, .9, -1.8, Clinton, O

-10, .05, -0.5, Trump, O

-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X

-10, .2, -2, Trump, X

-2, .8, -1.6, Clinton, O

The problem with that simplification is the assumption that CPV is at neutral, zero. And mapping effectiveness to a scalar factor of APV is also incorrect -- instead, it has to be understood as a normalization factor, attempting to return CPV to APV. The greater the effectiveness, the more quickly CPV achieves APV.

Should any factor bring CPV further negative than Clinton's APV, her effectiveness would become a force that lifts CPV. Meanwhile, Trump's is always attempting to pull CPV further negative towards his abysmal APV.

[ceejayoz]

> There is if you think the grain is a corrupt and unfair system that needs dismantling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.

"The system sucks, so let's put ISIS in charge" is an example of "going against the grain" and a truly shitty idea. Some of Thiel's ideas are in this "against the grain and shitty" category.

[kenko]

incidentally this is a good paper: https://www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/ftawil.pdf

[vixen99]

Link for Trump statement saying he wants to deport Muslims?

[vixen99]

None forthcoming!!