'Increasingly, People in Silicon Valley Are Losing Touch With Reality' (500ish.com)

Longtime commentator MG Siegler writes: You can see it in the tweets. You can hear it at tech conferences. Hell, you can hear it at most cafes in San Francisco on any given day. People -- really smart people -- saying some of the most vacuous things. Words that if they were able to take a step outside of their own heads and hear, they'd be embarrassed by. Or, at least, these are stances, thoughts, and ideas that these people should be embarrassed by. But they're clearly not because they keep saying them. This isn't only about Facebook -- far from it. That's just the most high profile and timely example of a company suffering from some of this. And in that case, it's really more in their responses to the Cambridge Analytica situation, rather than the situation itself (which is another matter, though undoubtedly related). They don't know the right things to say because they don't know what to say, period. Because they've slipped out of touch.

But again, I feel like this is increasingly everywhere I look around tech. It's an industry filled with some of the most brilliant people in the world, which makes it all the more disappointing. I won't name names but also because I don't have to. I'd wager everyone reading this will have clear and obvious examples of what I'm talking about in their own circles -- even if only in their own virtual circles. This is everywhere. I don't know the cause of this. Perhaps we can blame part of it on Trump, even if only indirectly (a man who has gotten ahead in life by saying asinine things). If I had to guess, I'd say the root is an increasing sense of entitlement as the tech industry has grown in stature to become the most important from a fiscal perspective and arguably from a cultural perspective as well.

Comments

Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[CajunArson]

Starts off with: People in silicon valley are in a bubble.

True statement.

Ends with: It's basically Trump's fault that people in Silicon Valley are in a bubble.

Yeah... that basically shows the author is basically in the same bubble as the people in Silicon Valley.

Lemme guess: The main conclusion is that the elitists in Silicon Valley aren't Pavlovianly "woke" enough, which is why they are in the bubble?

Re: Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Perhaps the real problem is that we are talking about millennials, and in the valley they are all entitled, vapid, egoistic, victimistic, not actually all that intelligent, drug-addled and privileged clods with the emotional maturity of something growing in a petri dish. The post actually serves of a fantastic demonstration of what is wrong, just not for the intended reasons. Self-awareness, much?

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[AvitarX]

I stopped reading when it was said there'd be no examples.

I don't actually know what the author is talking about.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[cayenne8]

Yeah...the author seems to make a LOT of assumptions that everyone knows what he is talking about, as far as opinions and all.

He never gave a single example of one of these thoughts the Silicon Valley folks have that are out of touch.

I would agree on many things, they are, but in an article like this, I would expect some specific items they are out of touch with.....

He mentions Facebook and Cambridge....but what about that does he thing they are out of touch on?

And just automatically jumping in with a Trump bash....that just derails any other points he was trying to make.

Poorly written article, with assumptions that everyone things like he does.....without listing out what he thinks.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[bobbied]

I read this totally differently... I'm decidedly NOT in Silicon Valley and from my perspective this author is possibly on to something, but totally struck out trying to dance around the bush identifying it.

The problem with Social media in general is the propensity of people to identify dangerous ideas while wearing political glasses. This makes some feel, for instance, supporting the 2nd amendment is somehow akin to advocating the killing of innocent people in mass shootings. As such, then it justifies the elimination of that kind of message from the platform. The problem is the projection of political interpretations and the use of strong and angry rhetoric into the management of the platform. Such things need to stop and platforms need to not bow to social pressure born of the news cycle in their editorial decisions.

Where I fully understand the need for moderation of social media platforms and the social necessity of platform operators to keep things under control by putting limits in place and enforcing them, I think that platform operators need to CLEARLY define what sorts of things they will and will not allow then follow the rules they put forth strictly. Where I leave such editorial decisions up to the site owners, I would hope that operators can divorce themselves from political and social perspectives which are truly intolerant of alternate views and fall on the side of allowing folks to be offended by ideas they don't like.

There are examples of successful moderation techniques to be gleaned from USENET of the past (or even the present). I suggest we take a look at how USENET evolved, look at what worked, what didn't and apply the lessons we learned back then. Strong moderation policies, clearly written, evenly and strictly enforced quickly worked best in my view. Social platforms of today would do well to learn from these successful efforts.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[Lab Rat Jason]

I came here to say this... without any context he just sounds super pretentious. He may well be right, but good arguments are backed up with evidence, and his is not.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[phantomfive]

Too bad, because you missed the key sentence:

I’m honestly not even sure that some individuals—people I know—could pass the Turing test at this point

This article was clearly written by a robot.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[AmiMoJo]

This is a very common tactic in low quality opinion rags. The article is carefully worded to avoid specifics, so that the reader fills in the gaps themselves and thinks that it's about the people they personally dislike.

Another example of this is the phrase "SJW". No-one can agree on exactly what it means, which is why it's so successful. It means whoever the reader disagrees with and thinks is an idiot, basically a cheat code to make everyone agree with you.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[execthis]

When they showed videos on the news of employees evacuating YouTube I have to say I was shocked and immediately understood how fucked up Silicon Valley is. The employees are not even close to representative of the people of the Bay Area nor of people anywhere. To say that it's a bubble is an understatement.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[nwf]

Spot on! The author of the article needs to realize he is in the same bubble.

After reading the article, the author is in the bubble, sure. But unlike the people they are ranting agains, they don't appear to be actually intelligent. That article was content, fact and even anecdote free. Basically, "here's my opinion, but I'm above examples that demonstrate it."

A new low even for slashdot.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[bsDaemon]

The article is not very well written. He also doesn't give examples, and said as much. That said, it doesn't mean that Silicon Valley isn't a bubble of group think, weird-ass ideas, and other such things. Examples have been repeatedly satirized on HBO's "Silicon Valley," including:

* Quit college and go live in an incubator, because you know, who cares about a well-rounded education
* "making the world a better place"
* "Blood Boys" and parabiosis.
* The reverse scarlet letter syndrome with the Christian in this past week's episode
* The Matrix as a pseudoreligion (living in a computer simulation)
* The obsession with "the singularity"

If you spend five minutes on twitter looking at tech people you'll see it to varying degrees.

You have a concentration of people that are generally fairly intelligent but aren't necessarily cut out for dealing with people (nerds) trying to create a nerd paradise while being taken advantage of by much more savvy people who actually control the money. They're probably no weirder than nerds of the past, but they have the platform to broadcast their weirdness and enough money for people to take them at least somewhat seriously. Additionally, because the are living in a bubble of their own creation they assume that their intelligence in one area conveys to other areas as well.

The "omg Trump" aspect of the article is really just related to an on-going, ever-present aspect of society. Nerds are weird and that weirdness has led to nerds being the traditional victims of bullying. This is the soft of thing that causes resentment, and that resentment is probably manifested in the desire to push "disruptive" technology which is accelerating the destabilization of the economy. The desire to "automate people out of a job" can't really be articulated without a whiff of malice to it. Perhaps there are some people that really think the world will be like Star Trek -- but remember, the world of Star Trek comes after a major global war. "AI" may have the prospect of greatly improving lives, but if not rolled out and implemented correctly, it's going to make life miserable for a whole lot of normal people. The current issues around data collection and analytics, which are stepping stones towards AI systems, is a current manifestation of that every bit as much as automating factory work away is.

The current and future economic issues are, in large part, what drove many people to vote for Trump. His distaste for silicon valley is palpable. His goals and not those of silicon valley. His base is not aligned with silicon valley. But the Trump issue is more or less a side-show. He can be a useful stand-in for the divergence between "normal, every day Americans" and Silicon Valley types, but it's hard to say it's all about Trump.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[slinches]

Another example of this is the phrase "SJW". No-one can agree on exactly what it means, which is why it's so successful. It means whoever the reader disagrees with and thinks is an idiot, basically a cheat code to make everyone agree with you.

I keep hearing people claim this, but it doesn't make any sense. It has a pretty specific and widely accepted definition.

From Urban Dictionary: "Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation"

Now you may argue that some abuse the pejorative nature of the term to undermine legitimate advocacy for social causes, but the term itself is not poorly defined. And arguing about who should be considered an SJW is idiotic anyway. It's like trying to draw distinct boundaries around who is and who isn't a fuckwad.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[AmiMoJo]

My favourite example of how no-one can agree what an SJW is would be this clip from Star Trek The Next Generation: https://youtu.be/Xn5-iG6FX58

It's from the episode "The Drumhead", in which an investigator comes to uncover a conspiracy on the Enterprise. She ends up turning it into a witch hunt, reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Picard shuts her down with a brilliant speech.

The title of the video is "Triggered SJW Attacks Picard, Instantly Regrets It". The person who posted it seems to think that the investigator is the SJW, but many of the comments think it is Picard. The investigator cares little for social justice, she just wants to root out enemies of the Federation. Picard wants to protect the mixed-race guy she picks on, and on the whole his character is known for wrestling with moral issues and having a strong commitment to justice.

So is an SJW just someone who annoys you, or an authoritarian, or someone acting unreasonably, or is there some set of qualities that defines them? And if the latter, how come it's nor Picard, a guy who literally fights for social justice at times?

The phrase is completely meaningless, but people think they know what it means so you can use it and expect your audience to nod along regardless of whether they actually agree with you or not.

Re: Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[david_thornley]

No, the real problem is that we're talking about humans. Washington, D.C. has been in a bubble for a long time (and pretty well satisfies your list of adjectives in many ways), and the millennials don't have the power there.

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[bobbied]

I was citing an example from the current news cycle.

Where I make no apology for my political views, I DO expect that others would recognize the issue from my example. Personally, I welcome discussions which originate from widely varying political perspectives, even ones I find offensive.

The real problem here is how folks define "tolerance" as being "don't offend anybody." That's not tolerance, it's something else. Tolerance is knowing that it's OK to be offended by someone else's perspective and even express that you are offended, while letting folks be dead wrong if they insist. True tolerance recognizes that I'm responsible only for myself because I have no control over you. I can get angry about your stupidity and even tell you why I'm angry, but I cannot stop you if you won't listen.

Social media platforms have been trying to filter out offense... Something that I firmly believe is impossible.. But that's another topic..

Re:Idiot post about Silicon Valley

[david_thornley]

So... you're disagreeing with AmiMojo that the term has no meaning?

I'm pointing out that the Urban Dictionary definition cited above is bipartisan.

Not really. Slashdot is mostly libertarian.

Slashdot's a lot more varied than that. There are Trump supporters, and Trump isn't libertarian. He appeals to the far right, the nihilists, and the gullible. There's a fair number of us leftists.

For example, slashdot objects to the attack on video games from BOTH the right and the left (the Jack Thompsons and Anita Sarkeesians)

I was against violent video games before I started seriously looking at the evidence. They don't see to harm people in general, and some people find them fun. I'm not convinced that the right and the left are united against video games (except for the complaints all my life about anything teens find to do that isn't sex or drugs).

Slashdot is also more concerned on issues related to copyright and piracy than traditional left or right wing. Ditto concerns on online privacy

Yeah, and not that long ago I was about to wax eloquent about H-1B visas when I realized nobody in the room was likely to know or care. Slashdot is quite sensitive to issues that affect software developers.

Ditto crypto-currenies and their effects on societies/economies/governments.

If what you mean to say is that a lot of us have fairly strong opinions, sure. If you're trying to imply any trace of consensus, you're wrong.

The bigger concern is over having the state/taxpayers pay for other people's abortions. Ditto gay rights.

And all those who think it's murder and all those who think it's part of health care and should be paid for like other health care should be. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to help people with psoriasis or depression; why not those who need abortions?

As far as gay rights, why would treating them like everybody else cost money? I don't think that oppressing them to improve other people's financial positions would be popular here.

Consider this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That perhaps the real problem is that YOU are measuring reality differently than they are.

They're measuring reality with the relentless mathematics of financial analysis.

Your metric may simply be different.

Person in bubble

[TimMD909]

Seems that a person in a bubble is aware enough to notice other people's bubbles but not his/her own bubble.

Not just the valley.

[Hugh Jorgen]

First world countries that think Internet Outages are a disaster and where priorities are selfies and self-driving cars and toilets with LEDs in them ...

Re:Not just the valley.

[Opportunist]

Hey, internet junkies are just like F18 pilots. Both freak out when they find NO CARRIER.

I would be embarrassed...

[thegarbz]

If I typed that much without saying anything or making a point.

Re:I would be embarrassed...

[Headw1nd]

This is spot on. The author simply repeats conventional wisdom as if it were an insight, without adding anything concrete or actionable.

No examples?

[i_ate_god]

> I won’t name names or give examples because I’m not an asshole.

ok, so I have no idea what you're referring to then

Re:No examples?

[Zocalo]

Nor, I suspect, do many people who don't mingle with Silicon Valley types on a regular basis, which essentially turns the whole article into a meta example of what it claims. The author makes a claim that people in Silicon Valley (amongst other groups) are losing touch with reality because they are making vacuous statements, and then renders the article itself vacuous by failing to provide any supporting evidence or examples to back up his assertion. Or maybe it's just meant to be ironic?

saying what things

[GodWasAnAlien]

"really smart people—saying some of the most vacuous things."

What things. Just one example.?

This article is a joke with no punchline.

For those needing examples...

[rs1n]

...the article itself was example.

People without "real" problems create new ones

[Opportunist]

For themselves and everyone around them. From celebrities to soccer moms to, yes, why not SV inhabitants. I have no idea where this urge comes from, but listen to anyone, literally anyone, who doesn't have any real problems to deal with, i.e. those that have the first and pretty much the second level of the pyramid of needs fulfilled and overfulfilled. You'll notice them lament about problems that are none. They actually start inventing problems they can lament about if they really can't find any.

Meanwhile, out here in reality, we shake our heads about them and wonder whether these are really role models and something to aspire to.

Not a single example?!

[jelwell]

This has got to be one of the worst articles I have read in a long time. There isn't a single example of what he's talking about.

"I won’t name names or give examples because I’m not an asshole. But also because I don’t have to. I’d wager everyone reading this will have clear and obvious examples of what I’m talking about in their own circles—even if only in their own virtual circles. This is everywhere."

Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you could write an article to explain yourself.
Joseph Elwell.

Dunning–Kruger effect

[borcharc]

Tech people are really good at falling victim to the Dunning–Kruger effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... They equate their highly specialized technical abilities or "smarts" with being at the upper end of the cognitive spectrum overall. Where in fact, they are unable to baseline a "smart" person, so they assume they are one, because of their success in a very limited area. This is reinforced by people telling them how smart they are. Where in reality they understand a somewhat simple topic that the person giving the compliment lacks an understanding of.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is not just in tech, most people who are less than average overall assume they are at the upper end of the spectrum. This is entirely caused by a lack of a real point of comparison, they are ignorant of what they are ignorant of and no one dares tell them differently. They then feel they have authority to speak on topics where they have no more expertise than the average fifth grader. A great example of this is a genetics professor I once had given a lecture (in a high-level genetics class) about computer security. He was repeting a perspective that had recently been published in the media. He spoke with complete authority on the topic, but due to my lifetime in security, I know everything he was saying was sensationally fake. He lacked the perspective to understand that he wasn't smart in this area but claimed his high-level knowledge in biology allowed him to be an expert in every possible field. This is the exact same force at work...

horoscope ethics

[epine]

Yeah...the author seems to make a LOT of assumptions that everyone knows what he is talking about, as far as opinions and all.

He never gave a single example of one of these thoughts the Silicon Valley folks have that are out of touch.

Horoscope: Someone you thought was pretty smart will say something odd.

Reader: Odd how?

Horoscope: You don't know the first thing about horoscopes, do you?

Lefties still don't get it

[es330td]

a man who has gotten ahead in life by saying asinine things

The left, and many on the right, fail to grasp how incredibly shrewd Trump is. I don't much care for him as a person but the facts are undeniable that he is a successful real estate developer in NYC. It doesn't matter if his original seed money came from his father, one does not build ANYTHING in Manhattan without having a lot of clues. A great many things involving a large number of stakeholders have to happen to build a project and he did it multiple times.

In his first full attempt at public office (continued to the actual election), he ran for the highest office in the world and won. The man beat first the GOP, of which he was only peripherally a member that was united against him, and then beat the MSM and the career politician who was supposed to be the pre-determined next POTUS.

People think him to be a clown because he doesn't talk like a lawyer and then underestimate him. Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." Only one side in this battle knew the truth about the enemy.

Most people forget that what a person wants is very different from what they buy. A person buying a drill didn't want a drill, they need to make a hole. Even the hole was only necessary because the person actually just needed to mount a shelf. The Democrats kept saying "Look at our great drill and all the features it has. You have to get it because it is the best drill." Trump said "I'll hang your shelf."

Re:Lefties still don't get it

[benjfowler]

He's NOT successful. He is a terrible businessman, who's declared bankruptcy six times.

Furthermore, he has a terrible reputation for stiffing his suppliers and creditors. And he has managed to lose money operating casinos. If he isn't an outright criminal, laundering money for the Mob (as is strongly suspected to be a de-facto member of Russian organised crime, having repeatedly failed as a legitimate businessman, only to find himself "bought" by the bratva), then he would have to be utterly useless as business.

What's Trump's edge? Balls-out shamelessness, a massive ego, and a total lack of self-awareness that would enable him to gamble (and lose) in a way no ordinary, rational person would. The only people who associate with him are oligarchs and gangsters (usually the Russian kind).

Charles Munger famously said that if Trump wasn't such a dickhead, and has put his inheritance into a passive stock fund, he'd be richer than he is today, with far less effort.

THAT'S how much of a fucking idiot Trump is. No credit where it isn't due, please.

Re:The Deep South of the West Coast

[cayenne8]

And you think the GOP, NRA and the hundreds of right wing militias are ever going to let that happen? In fact -- that could be what starts armed conflict in the US. Lord knows the NRA have all but called for the slaughter of the Left,

Wow...just....wow.

You really believe that?

Did it never occur to you that the NRA is made up of and supported BY citizens of the United States, and that the organization is there to lobby on their behalf?

This isn't some mindless entity that is trying to push its evil views on the country, it is a representative of the people that value their 2A rights.

If the left wasn't trying to gun grab again....you'd not see this level of animosity that does seem to be brewing somewhat, but then again, what can you expect when you have sections of the US, trying to infringe upon the LONG held rights of many others in the US. You expect them to give up easily?

I'm actually shocked, to see how many people today, and it is mostly youths, that are so willing it seems to voluntarily give up their own rights.

And once you do give up said rights, you pretty much never can give them back.

But using words like slaughter, etc....that's really going above board. No one is calling for that.

If anything, I see more vitriol of that type actually coming from the left these days....they are the ones having the more violent protests these days.

If, however, there ever came a time with there was an attempt at mass confiscation, then yes....you likely would see violence.

I don't forsee it coming to that, but if constitutional rights get stomped on too much, it could get messy.

But do realize...that's what this country was founded upon, you know? Rights were hard fought for....the British didn't really nicely want to give us up if you recall. The founding fathers felt strongly enough to fight for their independence and to have a country with inherit rights.

One of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, was to have some insurance that the government didn't become too overbearing and intrusive again. It wasn't passed to just assure people they could still hunt food.

SJW

[huckamania]

I'll give it a shot.

An SJW is someone who thinks that people who do not support their pet issue should be publicly shamed and extra-judiciously punished for not supporting their pet issue. Typically they identify themselves as victims of straight white males. When not online, they enjoy spending time in mobs while repeating slogans and protesting the world.

Not really that hard.

Re:SJW

[Stolovaya]

A good start.

It's the difference between progressive and regressive (SJW).

A progressive wants to improve life for all. A regressive wants to mainly focus on those ranked higher on the "progressive stack".

A progressive tries their best to be "color blind" (as in, all people should be treated the same, everyone should have the same opportunities). A regressive believes that things like skin color and sexuality are more important than values or content of character.

A regressive will place those higher on the progressive stack on pedestals; you cannot joke or criticize these people, but you can joke, criticize, or wish death upon those lower on the progressive stack.

A regressive thinks in black-and-white terms with little nuance. You are either 100% with their cause, or you are 100% against. There is typically very little middle ground in their mind.

A progressive uses "privilege" to make people think about their position (i.e. "You (male/female) never have to think about which bathroom you have to go into. Other people would like to feel that way too."). A regressive uses "privilege" to shame and guilt, much like bad religious institutions (i.e. "Check your privilege!").

A regressive is fine with segregated spaces, but only for those higher on the progressive stack (such as black-only college dorms); anyone lower must 100% not have any space only for their .

A progressive might respect culture but understands it can be fluid and not everyone celebrates all aspects of cultures the same (especially in melting pots such as the US). A regressive believes cultural appropriation is everywhere and that there is an inherent "cultural copyright" that only members of said culture can participate or allow others to participate in (while being uneducated about the origins of certain things, such as dreadlocks, or believing that only Mexicans can wear sombreros).

A progressive believes that even though people have done bad things in the past (or even present), blame is not to be put upon those that are part of those groups that did not take action in those things. A regressive believes in original sin (particularly for those lower on the progressive stack) and that blame and responsibility should be shared across generations and groups.

A progressive believes that, even if what one says is terrible and disgusting, people have the right to express their views. A regressive believes that anything they deem bad should be suppressed at all costs; violence and censorship are perfectly fine to use ("no bad tactics, only bad targets").

I think you get the idea...

Re:SJW

[Pubstar]

In the communities that I am involved with, this pretty much sums up the definition of SJW. The fastest way to tell if someone is fighting for rights and being a progressive or they are a SJW - If the words "internalized racism/misogyny" is ever used when a woman or POC disagrees with someone on how something should be handled, they are a SJW.

Re:2020 Circus

[iamhassi]

Anyone blaming Trump still is stuck in the Silicon Valley bubble. Nothing that they said would happen has happened. Stocks did not drop, unemployment did not increase, economy did not tank, no one's civil rights have been taken away.

Re:2020 Circus

[reboot246]

Silicon Valley was out of touch way before Trump was elected. They've been out of touch since pretty much the beginning.

Re:2020 Circus

[iamhassi]

Trump didn't take away dreamers rights. They were already illegal aliens, whether they came here illegally at 10 or 50. Laws are just being enforced like they always have been. Even liberal media ABC admitted Obama deported more than any other president and Trump is continuing what Obama started http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...