Not really sure of the value of this is? Unless I am missing something, this reads like it was written by an "edgy teenager". Perhaps I am just missing some context.
One of the things I often hear, when people are talking about "shock jocks" (both left and right), is "They are just saying what everyone is thinking."
In my experience, there's a reason that we don't just say what we think.
That reason, in my case, is usually "I haven't thought out the long-term consequences of this, and I suspect that things really wouldn't turn out very well if it were generally in effect for long enough."
The context you're missing is literally the first sentence and googling "thiel question". Please put a little more effort before shooting.
Lazy web: The Thiel question is "What is something you believe and that nobody agrees with you."
It stands to reason that if you ask a crowd this question, you'll end up with a lot of out-of-whack answers (that's the whole point) and mostly false answer ("it's not that contrarian are often right, but when they're right, they're very right").
This isn't super valuable, it's just played for humor value. Each of these Thiel answers could still be interesting in its own right if the reasoning/motivation behind it was supplied.
Even if you don't agree with a contrarian statement, there's sometimes gems to be mined in the thinking that led to it.
It's the Thiel Question. The value in it is supposed to be that it generates thoughtful and insightful responses - if you are right and 99% of people are wrong then that is indeed impressive. Unfortunately, it selects purely from the extremes, where real insight is random. If it generated more concrete (i.e. scientific) responses that could be tested, it would be a much better question.
Unfortunately, with today's standards of critical thinking and speaking, you get fired for speaking independently, this is more likely to spawn a new movement rather than provoke thoughtful responses.
That's just how so-called "Rationalists" like to write. They have a lot of interesting ideas that are fun to learn about but the core community itself is basically a bunch of computer programmers who believe they can solve the worlds problems simply by thinking a lot and writing a blog post that uses a big metaphor.
I hadn't seen anyone arguing misotheism as an actual description of reality and (possibly eventual) omnicide as the only moral position to take on life before I ran into them online.
> this reads like it was written by an "edgy teenager"
"Edgy teenager" is about right. This reads like most of the writings and essays by the crowds of Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias. Though many aren't teenagers anymore...
This appears to be a direct response to the many recent articles stating that a large percentage of the US has political opinions they are afraid to express. So the author mined his blog readers for their answers to the Thiel question and then wrote a long form version of what those beliefs would mean.
It is a satirical representation of how society often romanticizes beliefs outside of the Overton Window because they are signs of a “unique free-thinker” when most of the time they’re just poorly thought out hot takes.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what this is.
The author posted a survey of the Thiel Question, which asks "Tell me one or more things almost nobody agrees with you on." The motivation of the question is a belief that to build something revolutionary, you need to be able to think outside the box. "People would be willing to rent air mattresses in their living rooms like hotels" is the canonical example (from 2008).
The problem is, most iconoclastic ideas tend to be... pretty outlandish. Also, people posting to anonymous web surveys (especially in the rationalist community) are probably tempted to exaggerate a little. So it's comedic to survey a group of people, collect the responses, and put them together as a hypothetical political platform.
I'm getting a lock of kicks out of the comments here. Clearly, many people don't get it's a joke (but at the same time, based on a survey whose purpose is probably not to make that joke in the first place (1)).
I'm considering using this as a filtering device. Misunderstanding this is a red flag for not trying to understand the context. And having a raging negative reaction to it is a red flag for temperament.
Humorous but also pretty disturbing! Just by reading these survey responses, it seems that we humans are mostly a bunch of racists and pedophiles. I guess that dovetails nicely with the assertion that human life is worth less than 500$?
But the survey wasn’t conducted among “we humans”, it was conducted among lesswrong readers. Lesswrong is normally pretty worthless, but this gentle lampoon if its own readership’s dumb opinions is actually pretty funny
I remember reading a few years back an article about the most commonly shared views among voters (as in 90%+ agree rates), finishing with a political manifesto designed to incorporate as many of said views as possible (unfortunately I don't quite remember exactly where that article was from, or I would link it). This, being the opposite of that article, is certainly more thought-provoking for obvious reasons, and I note that while there are likely people who agree with every statement in the other manifesto, there is almost certainly no-one who agrees with every statement in this one.
This reminds me of Paul Graham's 2004 essay "What You Can't Say"[0] which I think predates Thiel.
"The Conformist Test
Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence?"
Readit News
If not, then I truly feel sorry for some folks.
The "Thiel Question" is Id-mining.
One of the things I often hear, when people are talking about "shock jocks" (both left and right), is "They are just saying what everyone is thinking."
In my experience, there's a reason that we don't just say what we think.
Given that the post opens with a "Humor" tag and the writer claims to be an AI I am 100% sure it is satire.
Dead Comment
Lazy web: The Thiel question is "What is something you believe and that nobody agrees with you."
It stands to reason that if you ask a crowd this question, you'll end up with a lot of out-of-whack answers (that's the whole point) and mostly false answer ("it's not that contrarian are often right, but when they're right, they're very right").
This isn't super valuable, it's just played for humor value. Each of these Thiel answers could still be interesting in its own right if the reasoning/motivation behind it was supplied.
Even if you don't agree with a contrarian statement, there's sometimes gems to be mined in the thinking that led to it.
I hadn't seen anyone arguing misotheism as an actual description of reality and (possibly eventual) omnicide as the only moral position to take on life before I ran into them online.
"Edgy teenager" is about right. This reads like most of the writings and essays by the crowds of Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias. Though many aren't teenagers anymore...
It is a satirical representation of how society often romanticizes beliefs outside of the Overton Window because they are signs of a “unique free-thinker” when most of the time they’re just poorly thought out hot takes.
The author posted a survey of the Thiel Question, which asks "Tell me one or more things almost nobody agrees with you on." The motivation of the question is a belief that to build something revolutionary, you need to be able to think outside the box. "People would be willing to rent air mattresses in their living rooms like hotels" is the canonical example (from 2008).
The problem is, most iconoclastic ideas tend to be... pretty outlandish. Also, people posting to anonymous web surveys (especially in the rationalist community) are probably tempted to exaggerate a little. So it's comedic to survey a group of people, collect the responses, and put them together as a hypothetical political platform.
I found it hilarious.
I'm considering using this as a filtering device. Misunderstanding this is a red flag for not trying to understand the context. And having a raging negative reaction to it is a red flag for temperament.
(1) If you don't know about the Thiel question, here's the first google result for you: https://www.safegraph.com/blog/why-the-famous-peter-thiel-in...
> China wrote better philosophy 2000 years ago than the West writes today.
What's "better philosophy"???
"The Conformist Test
Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence?"
[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html