In September, Peter Thiel went viral after going on record to state that "If you're evil, you're not bad. You're actually maybe kind of good." The quote was taken out of context and sensationalized, having been sourced from a podcast interview where he contended that action is universally superior to inaction. Still, even in the full dialogue, Thiel fails to spin what initially reads as a rebuttal to his argument into a convincing endorsement of it. He backs his reasoning with abstractions that sidestep the consequences of acting without regard for others. It is Silicon Valley's 'move fast and break things' ethos taken to the extreme, supplanting empathy and common sense with the need for progress. The brevity of his statement and his negligence to elaborate on its ramifications in the original interview suggest a failure to understand just how illogical the claim is.
Despite Thiel's clout as one of the world's richest men and co-founder of Palantir, it would not be surprising if this tidbit never reached you. Irrational behavior has become par for the course for high-profile technocrats. In fact, it would be more shocking if Thiel faced an erosion of corporate trust for his statement. As far as investors are concerned, a proven ability to lead takes precedence over controversial philosophies; Elon Musk and Sam Altman are notable beneficiaries of this mindset, their contentious statuses overlooked in favor of their prowess to churn capital. In the modern context, it seems ridiculous that Mark Zuckerberg landed on the negative side of the press during the Facebook era. Predatory attention optimization strategies and the invasive data collection that landed him in hot water have become the industry standard. As stakes have risen with modern tech giants weaponizing enormous capital reserves with troops of lobbyists and lawyers, Zuckerberg's past transgressions look tame in comparison. Ignorance and lack of empathy are no longer enough to sustain the ire of the public; it is a rejection of common sense and respectable morals that has become the contemporary bar. How has the standard of integrity for corporate leaders dropped so low?
From a broader point of view, the irrationality of business moguls superficially presents as a contemporary phenomenon, but in truth the only trend has been its unveiling. Disagreeable characters have been a mainstay among the upper echelons of the corporate ladder, but the success of Trump's unfiltered and divisive branding campaign has paved the way to exempt them from media training, PR oversight, and the need to appease the majority. Behind the closed curtains of commerce, it has always been those with 'Dark Triad' personality traits who are disproportionately rewarded. Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy equip individuals with the tools to take advantage of a capital-first environment. A combination of self-interest and lack of empathy allows them to make decisions in the truest pursuit of capital and influence. In fact, some estimations find executives to be 20 times more likely to exhibit Dark Triad traits than the population at large. What we have pathologized as maladaptive characteristics take on new life in the corporate world. Given how incentivized they are to act opportunistically, it is very plausible that these traits are actually adaptations.
Yet, this consideration still fails to explain the behavior of modern technocratic juggernauts who, cunning and unfeeling as they may be, seem to have also abandoned basic logic and reasoning. Thiel himself completed a bachelor's in philosophy at Stanford and stayed for a subsequent law degree. He is unquestionably intelligent and well-read, even comparing interpretations of Faust while attempting to justify his notion that evil is good. Even so, revealing the harm in having such an extreme viewpoint does not require an academic. What makes a philosophy major from an elite school so lacking in discretion?
Generating a Narrative
To answer this, I must introduce Sperry and Gazzaniga's studies on split-brain patients in the 1970s. Their work focused on a fascinating edge case of cognition as their participants were composed exclusively of those who had their corpus callosum severed. This is still a fairly common procedure to treat severe cases of epilepsy, disconnecting all communications between the two halves of the brain. Remarkably, most who undergo this surgery do not experience long-term impacts to their quality of life and are indistinguishable from controls in daily life.
Sperry and Gazzaniga discovered that the two halves, unable to coordinate, operate independently of one another and conduct tasks in parallel. For example, commanding the right brain to walk by flashing the command to the left visual field (since the nervous system is mirrored relative to the halves), gets the participant to begin walking without the left brain being made privy to why. Since the left brain is responsible for language production, the researchers can verbally access its knowledge by asking participants why they are getting up. One would expect them to reply with 'I don't know', but they instead spun stories. One stated, "I was thirsty and wanted to go get a Coke".
Fabricating stories without evidence or a basis in reality has long been conflated with dysfunction. We label these stories as delusions and, if they are serious enough, those who experience them are diagnosed with some neurological or psychiatric disorder. Dementia, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder all list delusions as a symptom. However, in the case of split-brain patients, many do not exhibit signs of recognized disorders. Additionally, while the split-brain condition may be considered a neurological abnormality, the lack of potential for real-world harm meant it was not pathologized. Thus, they are behaviorally normal, so psychologists in the 1970s were more than happy to derive lessons about the healthy brain from them. To Sperry and Gazzaniga, this was enough evidence to postulate that one of the brain's many functions is to justify its own actions.
In fact, some have argued that our ability to spin stories is necessary for our survival and wellbeing. In 1980, Irvin Yalom introduced his concept of the 'Four Givens' of life. These are a set of inescapable truths that every person must face and develop coping strategies for if they are to live a fulfilling life.
- Death
- Mortality is unavoidable; you and everybody you love will die.
- Freedom
- Free will means we shoulder the burden for the choices we make.
- Isolation
- Our consciousness can only be experienced from our perspective. There is no way to seat another into our experience.
- Meaninglessness
- There is no inherent meaning to life.
It is up to us to develop the delusion that there is a greater purpose to work towards despite the truths we understand. Some knowledge must be rejected in order to preserve our drive; our reality must be constructed instead of derived.
The year before, a study conducted by Lauren Alloy and Lyn Abramson went as far as to suggest that those who construct a more objective reality are the ones we label as dysfunctional. In the study, participants were split into a depressed experimental group and a healthy control group, with a button and a light presented to both. They were free to press the button as often as they wished, but the light illuminated independently of it. After allowing the groups to play with the button, they were asked how much control they believed they exerted over the light. The healthy controls tended to overestimate their degree of influence on the light while the experimental group were more were measurably more accurate in their identification that they had none.
If the definition of insanity can be said to be trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then sanity is trying something once and never again. Optimism is a delusion; failing repeatedly with the individual as the primary common factor should be reason enough to throw in the towel. In spite of this, we look down upon such negativity as being unhealthy and certainly undesirable. Those without a psychiatric diagnosis tend to forge positive delusions to their benefit. In this manner, life is made worth living. These tall tales allow one to believe that they can make the best out of their environment and be 'successful', whatever their definition of it may be.
Delusions at Work
Sam Altman is well aware of this as he has written, "Self-belief is immensely powerful. The most successful people I know believe in themselves almost to the point of delusion." This is how he, along with Musk and Thiel, can act so unscrupulously. They are, without a doubt, aware that their judgement is clouded by positive delusions, but they recognize it as an advantage and have minimal interest in parting with it. For them, the end justifies the means in pursuit of their grand visions.
This is particularly clear in Thiel's case, as he has developed an extreme philosophy regarding how to leverage his position in the world for the betterment of society. He views democracy as a threat to individual autonomy since it continuously introduces policies to control and restrict the market, suppressing personal freedoms. Instead, the system should be dismantled to favor a truly open market which will allow citizens to freely create and, most importantly, innovate.
One can easily observe Thiel's hypocrisy through Palantir's dependence on contracts from the US government. His anti-establishment viewpoint is hard to defend when a significant portion of his wealth comes directly from the establishment itself. But, as Thiel sees it, he is playing the long game. By running Palantir with minimal investor input, decisions can be made quickly and contracts honored faster. He hopes to automate as many government processes as possible, cutting more bureaucrats out of the system as he replaces existing solutions with black box software solutions. If he gets his way, Palantir will become a monopoly with the capital and influence to repeal existing policies.
It is difficult to imagine that gunning for the throat of American values, the democratic system, will prove to be anything other than a pipe dream. In order to work towards his goal, Thiel must maintain delusions that are as grand as, if not grander.
This mechanism works no differently from a child having aspirations of being a first-generation college graduate. Existing institutions are much more exclusionary than we like to imagine and having to navigate academic pressures, applications, and loans can be more than enough to discourage the uninitiated (or, more realistically, the unconnected). They have to believe everything will be OK, that everything will work out, despite the fact that it eluded their forebears.
The behaviors we observe from Thiel and from other high ranking contemporary technocrats are exploitations of our natural proficiency in managing our interpretation of reality. These are individuals who have been driven by innovation, rewarded for it, and expected to perform via the objective metric of revenue. The market drives them much like it does anybody else.
Thus, as technological advancement will likely not decelerate anytime soon, we should expect to be exposed to a proportionally large increase in delusional ideas. This includes top officials, academics, technocrats, and also the average citizen. Those who lead must develop the confidence to convince themselves and others of the importance of their mission with the pace of modern technological development denying them the ability to second-guess. Those who are led are then responsible for assessing worthwhile objectives and selectively supporting ongoing efforts to achieve them. Without the ability to turn a critical eye back upon oneself, they too can easily convince themselves that the end always justifies the means; bringing their beliefs in line with the comparatively outlandish offerings from the rich and powerful. We all have our delusions, but that doesn't mean we aren't in control.