What I believe that only few do

“What important truth do very few people agree with you on?”

This is a favorite interview question of Peter Thiel, and I love it because it doesn’t just test external knowledge, but meta-knowledge and internal wisdom.

It entails conviction in what I believe, a clear grasp of what the general public believes, and the confidence to go against the wisdom of the crowds.

I often reflect on this question and it is damn tricky, but I finally have an attempt at an answer:

“More transparency is not necessarily better, and many things are better kept fuzzy.”

Look at relationships. Imagine a community where all latent thoughts and emotions are laid bare. Chaos will ensue — anyone will find a reason to hate everyone. The vague, fuzzy zone is where relationships flourish.

Look at salaries. Imagine a company where all the compensation data and performance evaluations are open for every employee to see. Too much transparency will reveal the reality that we live in a 99–1 world… that 1% of the members contribute 99% of the outcomes, that optimization is a fool’s errand.

Because of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth and happiness, proper attribution of compensation to contribution will simply sow further discord. Equitable distribution is technically unfair, but it generally results in higher aggregate happiness for all.

I believe many of our recent problems stem from over-transparency and over-sharing. Digital technology is awesome when it breaks walls, but not when it is eroding the scaffolding of society (in the Girardian sense).

In this sense, more knowledge is not always better. Mimetic rivalries will keep erupting. They say you can’t manage what you can’t measure, but quantitative measurement can often be dangerous because what is easy to measure is rarely what is most valuable.

Most people believe in transparency as a good, but the truth is the opposite. This is the important truth I believe that I know only few people do.