The author conflates anti introspection and post-introspection. Marc is not against introspection, he clearly identifies that a few hundred years ago introspection wasn't all that common. Marc clearly identifies as post-introspection in that there's something beyond just humans constantly looking inwards (which seems to be the Author's passtime).

There's a fine balance between contemplating what to do and focusing on doing - perhaps Andreesen thinks that the balance needs to be shifted righwards.

On the topic of Sigmund Freud: The author fails to understand that it takes a critical mass of people to develop functionalities for the society to meaningfully change. In the same way that Hinduism identified atheism multiple thousands of years ago, but that didn't bring any meaningful change in the society until the west brought modernism.

▲

theahura 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> a few hundred years ago introspection wasn't all that common

Marcus Aurelius, Napoleon, Lincoln, the founding fathers, and a long slate of writers and philosophers would like a word

	▲	simianwords 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are again making the same mistake, please try to understand what I'm saying. Atheism was a known concept at least amongst some priestly class in India but that didn't matter - the larger part of the society was not developed enough to understand it. Society only meaningfully changes when a critical mass of people understand and apply a concept - in this case introspection.

▲

tgv 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> a few hundred years ago introspection wasn't all that common

Early death, however, was common. What's your point?

> Marc is not against introspection

One of the people cited spoke of a "zero-introspection mindset." That wasn't Andriessen, but it's rather clear.

	▲	simianwords 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Early death, however, was common. What's your point? I wrote my point clearly: not enough of the society had an introspective mindset for society to be meaningfully influenced by it