Peter Thiel: 21st Century Free Radical | Hacker News Reader

Peter Thiel: 21st Century Free Radical

businessweek.com

37 pointsprs14 comments

Marmer, who's launching a business consulting startup with two friends, decided to apply for the fellowship as soon as he heard about it on Facebook. (...) Marmer has informed his parents that, whether he wins a Thiel Fellowship or not, he is dropping out of Stanford.

and

A month after meeting Thiel at the Palace of Fine Arts, Marmer has quit school and moved out of his parents' home in San Francisco. He's living in the pool house behind a friend's place in Atherton, near Palo Alto, where he and his partners are working on a startup devoted to developing a "management science" for boosting the success rate of other startups. "Have you seen The Social Network? The house looks a little like that," Marmer says over the phone in early January. "A few people who have come by have actually said, 'Oh, it's just like Facebook.' "

Doesn't it strike anyone as weird that Marmer is an undergraduate, and is dropping out of school to do a 'business consulting startup' as well as developing a 'management science' to 'help other startups succeed'?

That coupled with the fact that he's moved into a 'pool house', and is enamored with the similarity of his situation with the early Facebook, worries me.

I'm under 20, and given the opportunity (had I known about the Thiel Fellowship before the application date, for instance), I likely would have applied. $100k to drop out of school and create the Next Big Thing? Hell yeah.

But there's more to it than that. 20 Under 20, it seems, is meant to address a fundamental flaw apparent in higher education, extricating from the "system" bright young minds before they've become too institutionalized. I can't help but wonder, though, if that's the best way to go about it.

My opinion is hardly as strong as Weisburg's, but if your goal is to address a problem within a system, I'm not confident that the best method is to tear it down and start from scratch. Thiel, however, seems to be doing this by proposing that students should address this issue by simply not attending.

Personally, I'm working on a project while going to school. Over the summer, I very well may decide not to come back. But I'm simply acting for my own benefit. I'm not trying to change a system.

Then again, maybe the whole thing just needs to be torn down.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

>but if your goal is to address a problem within a system, I'm not confident that the best method is to tear it down and start from scratch

What's a better method? Trying to work within the system in the hopes of improving it? You seriously think there's any hope of changing the ancient culture bubble of academia overnight?

He's not even attacking the system: he's offering motivated and talented people a very attractive alternative option.

Of course there is no hope of changing it overnight. There is no hope of rebuilding overnight either. I'm simply suggesting that you don't just rewrite the code before trying to make changes within.

Of course, it's not difficult to argue that many have tried, and failed, to make changes in the past, which is why I included that final sentence.

However, I do believe that he is implicitly attacking the system. This it's where I trend to agree with Weinberg; A man of Thiel's influence may just set a precedent.

Zach, I wouldn't call the limited scale on which Thiel is acting "tearing down the system"--more like creating a nascent alternate system, side-by-side with the existing one, for the few who can benefit from it.

There are already things like this; Deep Springs College certainly isn't for everyone, almost by definition, although most of those who attend it seem to do quite well.

Anyway, an escape hatch from the system isn't necessarily an attack on the system.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Springs_College

Having finally had the chance to attend last night's talk with Peter and Max Levchin, I can say I was thoroughly impressed (by both of them). I believe he (well, both of them, honestly) has a genuine desire to help improve the world on multiple levels so frankly, even if any of his tactics seem a bit unorthodox, so what.

Wondering about the timing, since Forbes just did a cover story on Thiel: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0214/features-peter-thiel-...

Think YC offers as good if not better value than Thiel. It's sort of the same thing, just less ideological.

No women allowed:

http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...

Please keep these idiotic allegations off Hacker News, especially if you apparently haven't read the original Cato post, where it's obvious what Thiel meant and what he didn't mean. Gawker has been hating Thiel for some time.

I have seen this said about Thiel hundreds of times, and it's just not true. He said that from a strictly Libertarian perspective - from the perspective of political freedom - things 'went downhill' when women got the vote because women tend to more consistently vote in favour of social programs and thereby in favor of expanding the state and decreasing personal liberties, once those programs get introduced via legislation. Therefore, he doesn't suggest to not let women vote, as Gawkers "suggests", he just states his conviction that times are difficult for libertarians.

Also, having written a book precisely about the difference between statements being offensive and just being perceived as offensive by PC culture, all this must make Thiel shake his head about the reading comprehension of the general public.

Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree with his view but it is rationally presented in the Cato article (I should have followed the link before writing an angry comment) and not bigoted as Gawker makes it seem.

You don't agree women are more likely to vote for statist social programs?

Please provide some evidence for your disagreement.

You're welcome.

Is this for real? What a dick.

Thanks for the link - it's easy to forget that people such as Thiel who display enormous intelligence in one domain can be such morons in another.

I realize that this is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and if anyone wants to have a rational discussion explaining why Peter Thiel might not be a fuckwad I'm all ears.

EDIT: Okay, I understand why a downvote might be appropriate if that didn't come across as a very level-headed comment. But seriously, if you don't think Thiel is a dick for saying that about the women's vote I'd be pretty curious as to why. My views align pretty closely with libertarianism and I'm certainly all for people honestly expressing themselves but I find it frightening that someone could legitimately believe that the women's right to vote is a bad thing.

EDIT 2: Well, I'm an idiot. I didn't realize the context of Thiel's comments as dsplittgerber pointed out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com