Comments on: Peter Thiel on Contrarians https://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/04/peter-thiel-on-contrarians/ AP's thoughts and musings Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:13:09 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jeff Jenkins https://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/04/peter-thiel-on-contrarians/comment-page-1/#comment-4935 Jeff Jenkins Fri, 04 May 2012 19:31:09 +0000 http://amandapeyton.com/blog/?p=471#comment-4935 <p>I think that the state of there *not* being tons of opinions floating around was an anomaly created by the modern news industry.  This reminds me of The Economist's special report on the future of the news.  It's slightly off-topic from contrarianism but important background material on diversity of opinions:</p><p><a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18904136" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/node/...</a></p><p>The rest of the articles in the report are under "In this special report" for reasons I can't comprehend.</p><p>The gist of it is that before the mid 1800s when the first mass market newspapers opened people largely got their information socially, and up until the turn of the 20th century the currently favoured "detached" style of journalism hadn't fully taken hold (and it may have only done so for financial reasons, since they needed to not piss anyone off to reach a (local) mass market).</p><p>It seems like we're just now getting a return to where we were a few hundred years ago, where mass-media referred to the  producers and consumers.  The one key difference now is that people can organize by niche rather than geographically.  That's had some good and bad outcomes, but I suspect that it wouldn't make a difference to most people since a couple hundred years ago geographic areas would have had much tighter beliefs than they do now.</p> I think that the state of there *not* being tons of opinions floating around was an anomaly created by the modern news industry.  This reminds me of The Economist's special report on the future of the news.  It's slightly off-topic from contrarianism but important background material on diversity of opinions:

http://www.economist.com/node/...

The rest of the articles in the report are under “In this special report” for reasons I can't comprehend.

The gist of it is that before the mid 1800s when the first mass market newspapers opened people largely got their information socially, and up until the turn of the 20th century the currently favoured “detached” style of journalism hadn't fully taken hold (and it may have only done so for financial reasons, since they needed to not piss anyone off to reach a (local) mass market).

It seems like we're just now getting a return to where we were a few hundred years ago, where mass-media referred to the  producers and consumers.  The one key difference now is that people can organize by niche rather than geographically.  That's had some good and bad outcomes, but I suspect that it wouldn't make a difference to most people since a couple hundred years ago geographic areas would have had much tighter beliefs than they do now.

]]> By: Jeff Jenkins https://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/04/peter-thiel-on-contrarians/comment-page-1/#comment-293 Jeff Jenkins Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:09 +0000 http://amandapeyton.com/blog/?p=471#comment-293 <p>I think that the state of there *not* being tons of opinions floating around was an anomaly created by the modern news industry.  This reminds me of The Economist's special report on the future of the news.  It's slightly off-topic from contrarianism but important background material on diversity of opinions:</p> <p><a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18904136" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/node/...</a></p> <p>The rest of the articles in the report are under "In this special report" for reasons I can't comprehend.</p> <p>The gist of it is that before the mid 1800s when the first mass market newspapers opened people largely got their information socially, and up until the turn of the 20th century the currently favoured "detached" style of journalism hadn't fully taken hold (and it may have only done so for financial reasons, since they needed to not piss anyone off to reach a (local) mass market).</p> <p>It seems like we're just now getting a return to where we were a few hundred years ago, where mass-media referred to the  producers and consumers.  The one key difference now is that people can organize by niche rather than geographically.  That's had some good and bad outcomes, but I suspect that it wouldn't make a difference to most people since a couple hundred years ago geographic areas would have had much tighter beliefs than they do now.</p> I think that the state of there *not* being tons of opinions floating around was an anomaly created by the modern news industry.  This reminds me of The Economist's special report on the future of the news.  It's slightly off-topic from contrarianism but important background material on diversity of opinions:

http://www.economist.com/node/...

The rest of the articles in the report are under “In this special report” for reasons I can't comprehend.

The gist of it is that before the mid 1800s when the first mass market newspapers opened people largely got their information socially, and up until the turn of the 20th century the currently favoured “detached” style of journalism hadn't fully taken hold (and it may have only done so for financial reasons, since they needed to not piss anyone off to reach a (local) mass market).

It seems like we're just now getting a return to where we were a few hundred years ago, where mass-media referred to the  producers and consumers.  The one key difference now is that people can organize by niche rather than geographically.  That's had some good and bad outcomes, but I suspect that it wouldn't make a difference to most people since a couple hundred years ago geographic areas would have had much tighter beliefs than they do now.

]]> By: amanda peyton https://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/04/peter-thiel-on-contrarians/comment-page-1/#comment-277 amanda peyton Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:55:28 +0000 http://amandapeyton.com/blog/?p=471#comment-277 <p>True, though I am optimistic because I think the the development of subcultures and anti-cultures will persist despite even the most fundamental shifts in media.</p> True, though I am optimistic because I think the the development of subcultures and anti-cultures will persist despite even the most fundamental shifts in media.

]]> By: Robin Kim https://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/04/peter-thiel-on-contrarians/comment-page-1/#comment-271 Robin Kim Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:43:15 +0000 http://amandapeyton.com/blog/?p=471#comment-271 <p>My co-founder and I were sitting in the front row during this event!</p> <p>Herd mentality prevents people from forming well-defined views. As different types of media (e.g. news, opinions, entertainment, social, etc.) become more and more intertwined, I think herd mentality takes more and more control.</p> My co-founder and I were sitting in the front row during this event!

Herd mentality prevents people from forming well-defined views. As different types of media (e.g. news, opinions, entertainment, social, etc.) become more and more intertwined, I think herd mentality takes more and more control.

]]>