Peter Thiel on Undervalued Personality Traits | Conversations with Tyler
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- "You want people who are both really stubborn and really open-minded."
Full Conversation with Tyler here: / peter-thiel-on-the-fut...
Don't forget to subscribe to the Conversations with Tyler Podcast via iTunes, Soundcloud or your favorite podcast app.
iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
Soundcloud: / conversationswithtyler
www.mercatus.or...
Thiel is incredible. What a smart guy.
Really stubborn yet openminded...ie. rational people with integrity.
Or creative, yet functional...
yes, but somehow still irrational (in a good way) and strong principles
I think what Thiel is referring to here is best illustrated with a passage from Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy:
"In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held."
I don't c what being rational and having integrity has to do with being stubborn or open-minded
He's basically talking about being present in the moment. You can only balance two different opposing ideas when you're present and let things be
I think these are simply general traits of highly intelligent people: stubborn, open minded, idiosyncratic, teamwork-able. I would invest in people that combine having the widest spread of obsessions and also that consider themselves genuinely happy in life (that means they are also good at managing their emotions and motivation), especially if they've had a particularly challenging life. Also, in people that have good answers (or good non-answers) to questions like: “what is the meaning of life?” and “what are you really after?”. If they are after luxury, leisure and status, they're of average intelligence. If they're after a very high level of freedom and some sort of transcendence, and have some compelling strategy to achieve those (have given it a lot of thought), they're probably highly smart and self confident, because those are much much higher ambitions.
I agree, my thought is that valuable or successful people will be able to exhibit these traits when and where necessary. For example, be non-conformist to industry standard practices, but be conformist in terms of working with your teammates.
I think you're right, it may be more a property of intelligence as opposed to being standalone properties on their own.
So almost all billionaires are average intelligent individuals? Many really intelligent people are after luxury and etc. It doesn't necessarily mean that hey are average, but it indicates more about their character and their values, I think.
@@freedom1637 true, and someone who is intelligent is different to someone who is wise. If you get someone who's both, it's wonderful, especially if they're humble.
@@GafferSamz yes exactly! Someone can be extremely intelligent and extremely evil at the same time. If they are the opposite then it's great! As you said
He knows the way.
One true knuckle No
The real meme necromancer
peter is the queen
"Zen like" extremists. That's really the only trait of extraordinary people
The trait of extraordinary men is willpower.
@I G you seem to be confusing "extraordinary" for powerful. But your statement most certainly applies to the powerful.
I G ouch - incendiary post, but unfortunately accurate
@I G based and, dare I say, redpilled
He said “Zen-like opposites”
Find people who are high in IQ, but low in conscientiousness and figure out how to stimulate their creative side. These are the most underrated (undervalued) neurons just lying dormant, waiting to be recruited. But you’re going to have to look for them, because they’re not as proactive job searchers.
no wonder, the job search is probably the most inefficient and draining process there is.. I am currently doing it and would prefer to work somewhere for free for a month then waste my time sending cvs and filling forms, that most likely no one even reads. The problem with high iq is that you can see past the process before you even begin so you can early on evaluate which work is a tremendous waste of time. Unfortunately the world around us is full of redundancy and inaccuracy, making a lot of tasks borderline pointless. This and the fact that the world is tremendously interesting is the cause for low conscientiousness. If there is an efficient process with meaningful goal, I would bet that no high iq individual would have motivational issues, just the opposite would happen.
gatheringwithin It is a quite arduous process. But for most advanced occupations, paying the first month’s salary is not the costly part. The costly part is the opportunity cost of devoting resources towards training you, and also taking too many people onboard who don’t end up working there anyway. A month is a long time, so businesses value selecting the right candidate rather highly, and actually paying good money from the start is a way of attracting the more competent candidates. Remember, businesses bargain over you just as much as you bargain over them.
gatheringwithin I think you’re overestimating how many tasks are pointless. Tasks that don’t have much obvious utility to us often serve alternate more opaque purpose. Many of our institutions don’t make much sense at all if we just look at their stated goal. Take education for example, and its stated goal of actually educating the workforce. With a few exceptions, the knowledge acquired at colleges and in high schools are not good proxies for the knowledge required of workers on the labor market. High IQ individuals can easily see this and they can probably think of ways to improve it. But such efforts may render poor returns if you fail to understand the fact that schools serve a different purpose; namely to award credentials for conscientiousness and people’s ability to follow instructions and show up on time etc. If you put a college online you could make it cheaper, and people could learn more stuff because they could all have Tyler Cowen as their professor. But there would be no way for employers to distinguish between the student who sleeps in and shows up late, and he who doesn’t. And that is a rather crucial signal that gets lost.
So my point is that we should be careful judging systems as redundant and wasteful. Some institutions have evolved to send valuable signals that are non-obvious.
yes, sure it is costly for companies to educate people if they lack the necessary skill-set to do the job. It is also problematic that this training may all go to waste, but that is why contracts are made and I think, if the employers were clever instead of lazy, then both them and their employees could gain in the process. What is important to recognize is that time is also valuable for people that search and later do the job, and they would much rather spend it preparing for the job then searching for it. Most jobs are very repetitive in nature and the actual "sharp skill-set" required can be gained rather quickly and for the big part independently with all the online resources. Current section process is polarized only to one side, recognizing the valuetime of employer and not of an employee, but in properly functioning system both sides are equally important. Of course the prefect employee is the one that knows everything and doesn't take breaks and doens't have personal problems. But the reality is people are not robots. And a cv based system, that turns over cvs like a combine harvester is unrealistic and detrimental to society, putting pressure on people to waste their time do develop their profiles, instead of developing them selves.
yes, sure, not all goals are clear at first side they can be is a little cog in a giant machine, having a well defined purpose, i don't doubt that, but still many of them are pointlessly recursive and of a little value to anyone. Maybe some task made sense 100 years ago but now it may not be so anymore. The education is a good example of that. And i do not agree that it is good or effective way to test or prepare individual for the future job. I have close personal experience how it works both from a student and academic side, and have very negative opinion on it.
To keep it short. You are taught many things despite if you like it or not, which influences your interest and information retention negatively. Majority is theoretical, and employers require practical knowledge. Standardized testing, highly ineffective, here again split from reality, scoring well on questions is not equivalent to having understanding. As for academia side, is a big mess starting from peer-review and finshing on writing research proposals, "game of trones" where science comes last, and money gets wasted. It is just like as corrupt as politics.
As for the argument that education is a measure of conscientiousness i don't find it all that valid. Sure you can say that people who graduate are more conscientiousness then the ones that don't (on average). But people change and they have different targets at different times. It is the incentive that makes all the difference. If there is a strong cause it will have an effect.
jordan peterson is a sophist
I think its seprating emotion from your decision. Success and wealth should be seen as an abstraction
Using the big 5 high on openness and low on agreeableness?
Highly Intelligent. Slightly Psychopathic
@@ryanburdeaux Then through in some extroversion and low neuroticism for good measure and you've got yourself a slightly narcissistic superstar ceo
That personality theory stuff sounds like so much BS to me.. may have some parallel to reality, but way too overplayed... we just don't understand the mind and human thoughts, period. It's like people all passionate about vegan or keto or whatever when we don't really understand the first thing about nutrition.
Absolutely brilliant man. Happy the president gets advice from him.
If he's getting brilliant advice, he must be ignoring it.
The trait of telling your employee what they've implicitly outlawed as an opinion and therefore sending the entire company into a spiral of choas
??? What are you referring to?
I think Theil is awesome.
Peter Thiel always sharp
Peter invested in Thinkful - an online coding bootcamp that has devolved into a dysfunctional joke. I thought I would be "non conformist" and point it out. Go to glass door and check out the most recent reviews. Here is a great one titled: "Dead fish floating in the Edtech bubble." Thinkful was on a roll when it started off in 2013. There was no distinction between the HQ team and the mentors and renumeration were excellent. But somewhere along the line, the goal changed from helping students and building great relationships, to making as much money as possible while screwing off the engines of the company. The end result is a company that looks good but works like an Asian sweat-shop factory. That last statement is true because as of today, Thinkful is actively sourcing for cheap labour from Asia and South America because their American counterparts are deemed as "too expensive". Forget about any career growth, the best you'll ever be if you are a mentor is a talking encyclopedia. You will give your all, but never get credit for it. That's the price of selling your time for a living. And if you think you can hop off to another company that will value your mentorship time and effort then good luck because Thinkful bought them all of. Bloc, Viking Code School, the list is endless. The massive acquisition sprees that Thinkful's been on, means that it's running in the red and the only way to sustain profitability is by cutting costs. Mentors get a paltry $20 an hour down from what was $30+ and in some cases $45 an hour a few years back. The curriculum is managed by people who not in touch with reality or best practises. It's hard to get students to learn the right way of doing stuff if what's written in the curriculum is wrong but supposedly canon. For a company with some of the best minds from the globe on their payroll, their curriculum app is still a horrible, laggy piece of engineering. Long story short, avoid like a plague if you want peace of mind. All the best people(Nora, Bill, Derek, Zac, Varun, Bracha, Zoe, etc left a while back and what's left of the HQ staff are nothing but cheap substitutes who lack empathy, respect and appreciation for good quality talent. Darrel meanwhile is content to post articles criticizing other boot camps but delegates all the uncomfortable decisions to his juniors so he can stay looking good. Watching what was once a thriving family unit turn into a toxic semi-corporate minefield is sad. Spare yourself the horror of selling your time for a living and look elsewhere for a company that values your time and effort. Because with Thinkful, you will never be appreciated for going the extra mile, in fact, you'll be chastised and advised to stop setting expectations that others can't keep.
Relax, dude.
Peter Thiel is so damn smart!
I doubt it. He is a gay guy who supports and funds far right organisations. He isn't that smart, because he is helping people who hate what he is (a gay man). And those people are just using him for money.
@@NowIknow24345 Fund both sides of the war...
The advent of the managerial society, and the feminization of society in general, have been marginalizing eccentric personalities more and more.
The need for "safety for the whole community" and making everybody feel at ease without compromise selects against people with traits to become trailblazers and pioneers; people who in a different age would have been expanding frontiers for humankind.
Devastatingly awesome.
The question is so clueless to begin with. The movers, shakers and innovators all throughout history (ie the people that think outside of the box enough to change the norm) have generally always been "neuro diverse" people to begin with. People that think like the crowd do not, in general, spur much change.
There's no way to make a change if you think the same… So, it's obvious that anybody who make a difference in the world have to think different. But at the same time, probably MOST people who think differently will not make any difference because their ideas aren't that good.
@@juancpgo Yes I agree. I'm just referring to the question where he infers that is surprising that more and more neuro diverse people are the ones making profound changes when in reality, it has been that way since the dawn of human consciousness.
This guy is a genius
Just described me- 96th percentile in openness and 2nd percentile in disagreeable in big 5 testing.
@ 3:40 "...prehistory..." referencing teams prehistory, is a mute issue and false indicator if you consider DAO.
Peter thiel is so awkward and I like it #goals
this comment is so incredibly retarded
Great clip, especially in light of Tyler’s emergent ventures program and his upcoming book in spring 2022 on talent!
Peter may actually benefit from Hegel's insights into history and human nature.
Imagined how many genius neurodiverse kids got bullied and cant participate in high tech today
That isn’t true. Victims for life, are responsible for their own mentality.
Wow this is first time I hear him talk and I noticed the way he talks really resembles Mark Zuckerberg in some ways
yup i gotta agree
George mason is a great university. I recommend studying economics there.
free Tyler1!
Lol
These traits are only superficially contradicting/opposites. A INTJ personality can be open, confident. But too often "teamwork" means doing stupid stuff for and with stupid people, not for everyone.
Don't start with the Myer Briggs shit
regardless of how smart/talented someone is, having people skills is very important.
I got chucked out of the hamster wheel. Not just neurodiverse Neuroatypical. Feel sad for lots of the lost undiscovered neurodiverse! Going from pillar to post to pillar! Very few can understand the consistently inconsistent! Or inconsistently consistent
Are you sure you're not just neurotic?
@@nonefvnfvnjnjnjevjenjvonej3384..... Yes... Not just neuroticism.... Small part of bigger known that was unknown years ago
@@112deeps are you gpt3?
second time he's mentioned conviction...
Thiel, button up, sir.
no! take all those buttons off!
im really stubborn and open-minded, anyone wanna give me money?
lol that hair though.
When these guys say want idiosyncratic people, they mean idiosyncratic _but still within the matrix_. If you critique the matrix, they ignore you.
Really wish i understood the question; their answers are too abstract
made sense enough to me, but I've been working with similar problems so who knows. What exactly didn't ya get though?
Prince Blake I'm guessing you just don't know what idiosyncratic means, because that's the term he threw around so much in an effort to sound more intelligent. It means you're weird but not in a bad way. This was actually a really pretentious conversation, they were trying to speak over as many heads as possible whilst basically saying he likes to hire hipster snowflakes because they're all about 'getting to the same destination with a different path'. Yuck. I'm so glad I don't have a desk job..
Fredrick Miller he's talking about individuals who are, from a big five personality standpoint, high in both openness and disagreeableness while also industrious enough to get shit done. that's not at all a description of a hipster snowflake; if anything it's a description of a special operations soldier or, like Thiel said, a mad scientist.
@@offair911 Bingo
Undervalued traits: Neuroticism/anxiety, wildness, egocentricity, conventionality, introversion.
mike4ty4 You mean unconventionality, right?
@Dixon Adair : I was going by the so called "big five OCEAN" system of personality traits and its "value-biased" sounding labels for the trait poles:
OCEAN - Openness (which is associated with *Un*conventionality), Conscientiousneess, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism
Each term refers to the high poles and the terms seem value laden, e.g. that it is (always?) best or more valuable to be highly open, conscientious, extraverted, agreeable, but NOT neurotic but rather calm. But this isn't always the case.
There are no agreed on names for the opposite poles so I just used ones that seemed plausible and/or I've heard of before: conventional instead of open, wild instead of conscientious/planned, introverted instead of extraverted, egocentric instead of agreeable, and neurotic instead of calm. Indeed the lack of agreement on what to call the opposite poles is itself reflective of the bias.
That basically, there's only "one good type" of personality, all other types are more and more "bad" (the more axes you have on the "wrong" polarization the "worse" your personality is, even Introverts are considered more "bad" personalities, that is, even if you had Open, Conscientious, _Introverted_ , Agreeable and Calm, that would be considered "more bad"!), and the more strongly you are this "one good type" the "better" -- even though other research suggests bad things (that is, pathology) can happen with _any_ personality trait taken to too great an extreme in _any_ direction and I think that a) there's weakness with _any_ type and b) your "type" is not an "excuse" to do something bad.
mike4ty4 Thank you for your thorough reply! I definitely agree with you that there's an implied bias in the way the traits are named. I did notice you were referring to personality traits from the big 5 system, which I'm familiar with, but was puzzled by why you would include conventionality as an undervalued trait, along with the OTHER ones mentioned, about which I couldn't agree more with you, are indeed undervalued traits. It would seem to me that in the context of the startup world, unconventionality would be crucial to success.
(On a side note: It's interesting, I was listening to a podcast that actually talks about how the big 5 has now become the big 6. The original methodology for arriving at the big 5 was applied mainly on people of western origin, and when they reapplied the same methodology on a more global scale, a new personality factor emerged. I can't remember what it was now but I'll get back to you on that.)
@Dixon Adair : Yeah so in that case unconventionality (Openness, often notated in the literature as "O+") would be the valued trait not the undervalued one but that is kind of what I was saying. BUT ... at _least_ for the person or people coming up with the _ideas_ for the startup! Those that have the more "conventional" trait can provide a critical counterbalance which is also important because not all ideas are necessarily feasible! You need both types to make it fly, one to create new ideas the other to test them against reality. At least that's what I got in my Leadership classes at my University. There they described it in terms of animals: "Eagle" vs "Bear". The Eagle type would be on the Big Five unconventional/Open (O+) and Wild (opposite of Conscientious, so C-). They are free-wheeling who easily come up with new ideas to challenge the status quo. That is, they are a creativity engine. But not all unconventional ideas are necessarily workable! But the "Bear" is the opposite -- conventional and Conscientious (O- C+). The conventionality makes them grounded in the concrete, thus providing the critical counterbalance, while their Conscientiousness makes it easy for them to "get it done". Thus they're the "Doer": they find what works and then they make it happen. Then of course there are people in the middle, e.g. midway on each axis (denoted O= C=), or with the other 2 combos (conventional and wild (O- C-), unconventional and conscientious (O+ C+).) which can mediate. All these "types" have a use. Remember that a startup is a team, not one person! I thought this was a much better conception than saying there's only "one good type".
Nerd traits huh?
That guy needs to just say goodbye to his hair, at this point it’s just distracting .
Being shallow gets us nowhere
didnt notice...
That haircut
to busy taking care of business to care
Sean Dreiling It would take all of 3 minutes to shave that island off the front of his baldy bean. If anything it would benefit his enterprise as people would be more likely to engage with him.
Antonio G Much like Steve Jobs (lack of) fashion made a certain statement about his character, perhaps Tyler's hair does the same.
Why do you feel your prejudices are the same as everyone else or worse yet your prejudices are better than everyone else. IGNORANT, so funny you are opposite of what Thiel is looking for. Waste Management needs drivers there is a place for you!!!
His haircut, the suit doesn't scream billionaire, no brands. Zuccs shirts etc. None of those people care about showing off.
At his wealth people are instantly envious of you, your name is already a strong accessory. And for whoever lives heavily invested into his business and projects and is actually productive, doesn't care about appearance that much. People like him will never need to show off wealth.
And it is understandable. All his friends are rich and they all know who and what is capable of. Mostly lower class people or young persons who were born into wealth may show off.
What I would invest in if I were a billionaire would be some great rare watch, maybe from Patek ( of course ) since I am passionate about watches and because I really love having quality items that are useful and last multiple lifetimes so I can pass it down from generation to generation.
If this man came to speak to me, I would engage with him 150% and I am not even american.
No Dr. Emmett Brown for YOU!
Zen-like opposites - diversity
but work-well together - interdependence
always work in a team environment - not smell
How long have you worked together - enduring, maturing
No Thiel fellowship for you, Hegel.
I eat Apple's
🍎
+1
Dude... that’s me, 100%
feynman!
By MTBI personality definition, Peter Thiel is describing INTJ-A personality types.
Get out of here with your pseudoscience
@@missionpupa hahaha true that, Big five is much more accurate. He is defining a Low Agree-ability, High Conscientiousness, High Neuroticism, High Openness, Omnivert personality. Do you feel better now? That is psychologically accurate.
@@skaz783 I dont think neuroticism necessarily has to come into the picture, if it did, preferably low neuroticism most likely.
@@missionpupa Yes, low neuroticism makes you little better at being analytical and better critical thinker.
@@skaz783 You forgot low extraversion ( in the more stereotypical facets associated with classic extraverts) Mbti is trash tbh
Traits don't really matter. Macro level factors drive most things.
No, there's this thing called free will. Individual choices determine your life. Not "macro level factors." Blaming society for one's poor life choices is pathetic.
ease up nymph. yeah it's a combination. macro is the big driver. high demand pads bad management. each economic shift throughout history created wealth, the people in the right time and place benefited.
You didn't really say anything there. macro is usually the driver. macro as in the macro environment, the big sea change in consumption patterns or tastes. macro arises randomly often. if a tsunami wipes out your island, it's a random event, on a macro level that, regardless of who you are, how smart or connected or whatever... is going to wipe you out. macro driver.
If bill gates or steve jobs had been born in the 1700s, they would not have begat apple or microsoft because of the macro environment. the macro dictates the conditions and individuals who are positioned to capitalize do so. it is a combination but it starts with the macro. likewise if bill gates and steve jobs had not been born in the 1950s, someone else would have filled the void of personal computers; the macro conditions were there.
If you have the right traits, you can mobilize the macro factors to your advantage.
hammerstapping, i don't think you get it. i never said free willed individuals could not act within the chaos. but the chaos must have the right conditions for the individual to capitalize.
case in point - the management at twitter (ie twitter the company) can smoke weed at work and still get by, because there is enough macro demand to pull them along, cushion their weaknesses. likewise the brightest and most talented management could not grow a company in the wrong environment. there are plenty of examples. it's been proven.
he's so cute
I'm gay peeps btw just sayin
Very rich and very poor at the same time. Any man could be comparatively very rich, and only in some aspects. But only the truly good man, who would consciouly admits to himself that he knows, that he is very rich, yet at the same time, very poor in other aspects. --- These men are the most worthy to be my long term teacher, friend, and comrade.
Please Mr. Peter Thiel, let me have a short moment of your precious time, I have the solution to your quest for the world. Thank you for your attention. altc
This guy is one of those billionaires who doesn't believe in anything, the planet, the welfare of others - nothing except adding to his own wealth.
The liberal professor doesn’t seem half as smart as he clearly thinks he is.
Worst Thiel ever! (and I like Thiel)