Thanks for this insightful article. It’s illuminating to see that, except for the stoics, the entire canon consists of 20th—or 21st-century books. In other words, it skips what is traditionally called the history of ideas, let alone potentially retarding ethics or hard-to-read epistemology (like Kant or Wittgenstein). Why? I guess because it presupposes that these books are either outdated or of no use for the purpose of disruption. The reading (or skimming or even just listening) habits aim to move fast and not get lost in complicated, let alone abysmal thoughts.
What a nice bit of sociology of intellectuals. I've some exposure to Palo Alto and more to DC, and I think you're roughly right. In particular I remember thinking about economic orthodoxies inside the Beltway that weren't really tied to any sort of text, just what "everybody" thought because, I don't know, Schumpeter, or Keynes or whatever, not that anybody was reading them. Sort of the pundit version, and then, yeah, trade deals. Was very strange.
I also really like the opening, paideia to politics. But there's a bit of slippage: you say people in this milieu read such and so because it helps them, reflects the milieu, and so forth. It's not quite clear how education creates the milieu. You are no doubt busy, but could be a book here if you wanted it. Anyway, kudos, please keep it.
Very good article. And interesting about DC, a world I’m not familiar with. Years ago, when I was a lot more enamored of tech culture, I aggregated all of the books recommended by VCs on the twenty minute vc podcast, which produced a similar (although somewhat lower brow) list —
Okay - I would love to know: The image at the top - Is that a set of books you would suggest are probably also in the "vague tech canon"? Or a few of people's recommendations that didn't quite make it in to the "multiple people thought of them independently"? Or are in an official academic curriculum very near to / entwined with SV intellectuals?
Some fiction and popular philosophy aside, how is this list different from an airport bookshop's self-help section? What about books that take you to faraway yet familiar lands, illuminate the intricacies of the human condition, or unravel the inner workings of a tortured soul? Is it too much to ask to read more Dostoevsky, Austen and Balzac, and fewer hagiographies and fantasy novels?
On the one hand, I think the tech bros *do* read those books—see all the Dostoevsky on the much maligned Lex Friedman list, for a prominent example. There just isn’t a settled “canon” of such works in this intellectual community.
On the other hand, This does a gross disservice to the intellectual rigor of the books listed. ESCHER, GÖDEL, BACH is not popular philosophy. The POWER BROKER is not an airport book (and will provide great insight into both the intricacies of the human condition and tortured souls).
But in any case, doesn’t the essay provide my answer to this question? The purpose of these books is not to provide insight into the human soul—no more than the purpose of Plutarch’s biographies was to do the same.
To be fair Lex Friedman's list is more of an indication that he had never read those books and didn't even bother to do basic research…
I haven't read The Power Broker but have heard it's a classic. It's relevant to the YIMBYs so understandably appears on the list. GEB is indeed a fabulously conceived and executed book; however it's also subject specific and doesn't belong in the same category as great literature. I don't know in terms of reading habits go, how is it different from reading a report on evolution of tax codes. That it sounds deeper is because techbros work in a sector that's inherently more intellectual than an IRS employee.
I was probably too dismissive with the airport book comment. In any case, I think Plutarch may have originated the genre. Maybe it's time to throw Sima Qian into the mix for some variety.
The thing that is interesting is what books ended up on Friedman’s list. I would suggest that it is pretty close to what the Silicon Valley lit canon, if such existed, would look like. Very male, weighted towards speculative fiction, things assigned but never read in high school, and dark brooding thoughts on human nature.
Or another way to say this is Lex Friedman asked himself “what books of literature am I supposed to have read?” And this was the list he came up with. Very revealing of his social scene IMHO.
> The ideal wonk knows more about his or her chosen topic than you ever will. She can comment on every line of a select arms limitation treaty, recite all Chinese human rights violations that occurred in the year 2023, or explain to you the exact implications of the new residential clean energy tax credit—but never all at once.
I'm dubious how much these experts actually know about how what these things mean outside the Washington bubble. Especially since I doubt a wonk ever pays a price for being wrong.
Do you have evidence for that claim? It strikes me as both useful and necessary that *someone* understands, say, an arms control treaty in enormous detail.
I suspect the wonk "understands the treaty" in the sense of knowing what it says and what every clause is supposed to mean. His conception of how the treaty will actually work "on the ground" when weapon facilities are being inspected is likely to be wildly different from reality.
Eh, there is a good chance said wonk will end up being an inspector or supervising such. Most of the wonks, especially the extremely specialized ones, know their stuff.
More generalist they get of course the less true this will be.
I don't know about weapons inspectors, but in the case of industry regulators, the people actually working in said industry tend to be unimpressed with the wonks' knowledge.
Thanks for this insightful article. It’s illuminating to see that, except for the stoics, the entire canon consists of 20th—or 21st-century books. In other words, it skips what is traditionally called the history of ideas, let alone potentially retarding ethics or hard-to-read epistemology (like Kant or Wittgenstein). Why? I guess because it presupposes that these books are either outdated or of no use for the purpose of disruption. The reading (or skimming or even just listening) habits aim to move fast and not get lost in complicated, let alone abysmal thoughts.
Robert Caro's The Years of Lyndon B. Johnson series is missing...(and belongs on the list imo)
What a nice bit of sociology of intellectuals. I've some exposure to Palo Alto and more to DC, and I think you're roughly right. In particular I remember thinking about economic orthodoxies inside the Beltway that weren't really tied to any sort of text, just what "everybody" thought because, I don't know, Schumpeter, or Keynes or whatever, not that anybody was reading them. Sort of the pundit version, and then, yeah, trade deals. Was very strange.
I also really like the opening, paideia to politics. But there's a bit of slippage: you say people in this milieu read such and so because it helps them, reflects the milieu, and so forth. It's not quite clear how education creates the milieu. You are no doubt busy, but could be a book here if you wanted it. Anyway, kudos, please keep it.
Very good article. And interesting about DC, a world I’m not familiar with. Years ago, when I was a lot more enamored of tech culture, I aggregated all of the books recommended by VCs on the twenty minute vc podcast, which produced a similar (although somewhat lower brow) list —
https://www.residualthoughts.com/2018/02/13/most-recommended-books-from-the-twenty-minute-vc/
Okay - I would love to know: The image at the top - Is that a set of books you would suggest are probably also in the "vague tech canon"? Or a few of people's recommendations that didn't quite make it in to the "multiple people thought of them independently"? Or are in an official academic curriculum very near to / entwined with SV intellectuals?
Just to nitpick, is there a reason you listed the year for the 20th anniversary edition of Gödel, Escher, Bach?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
Only that I was quickly going through the amazon links and taking the date from there. This has now been fixed.
That's what I figured. It just caught my eye because it happened to be one of the books on the list that I had read.
Some fiction and popular philosophy aside, how is this list different from an airport bookshop's self-help section? What about books that take you to faraway yet familiar lands, illuminate the intricacies of the human condition, or unravel the inner workings of a tortured soul? Is it too much to ask to read more Dostoevsky, Austen and Balzac, and fewer hagiographies and fantasy novels?
On the one hand, I think the tech bros *do* read those books—see all the Dostoevsky on the much maligned Lex Friedman list, for a prominent example. There just isn’t a settled “canon” of such works in this intellectual community.
On the other hand, This does a gross disservice to the intellectual rigor of the books listed. ESCHER, GÖDEL, BACH is not popular philosophy. The POWER BROKER is not an airport book (and will provide great insight into both the intricacies of the human condition and tortured souls).
But in any case, doesn’t the essay provide my answer to this question? The purpose of these books is not to provide insight into the human soul—no more than the purpose of Plutarch’s biographies was to do the same.
To be fair Lex Friedman's list is more of an indication that he had never read those books and didn't even bother to do basic research…
I haven't read The Power Broker but have heard it's a classic. It's relevant to the YIMBYs so understandably appears on the list. GEB is indeed a fabulously conceived and executed book; however it's also subject specific and doesn't belong in the same category as great literature. I don't know in terms of reading habits go, how is it different from reading a report on evolution of tax codes. That it sounds deeper is because techbros work in a sector that's inherently more intellectual than an IRS employee.
I was probably too dismissive with the airport book comment. In any case, I think Plutarch may have originated the genre. Maybe it's time to throw Sima Qian into the mix for some variety.
The thing that is interesting is what books ended up on Friedman’s list. I would suggest that it is pretty close to what the Silicon Valley lit canon, if such existed, would look like. Very male, weighted towards speculative fiction, things assigned but never read in high school, and dark brooding thoughts on human nature.
Or another way to say this is Lex Friedman asked himself “what books of literature am I supposed to have read?” And this was the list he came up with. Very revealing of his social scene IMHO.
> The ideal wonk knows more about his or her chosen topic than you ever will. She can comment on every line of a select arms limitation treaty, recite all Chinese human rights violations that occurred in the year 2023, or explain to you the exact implications of the new residential clean energy tax credit—but never all at once.
I'm dubious how much these experts actually know about how what these things mean outside the Washington bubble. Especially since I doubt a wonk ever pays a price for being wrong.
Do you have evidence for that claim? It strikes me as both useful and necessary that *someone* understands, say, an arms control treaty in enormous detail.
I suspect the wonk "understands the treaty" in the sense of knowing what it says and what every clause is supposed to mean. His conception of how the treaty will actually work "on the ground" when weapon facilities are being inspected is likely to be wildly different from reality.
Eh, there is a good chance said wonk will end up being an inspector or supervising such. Most of the wonks, especially the extremely specialized ones, know their stuff.
More generalist they get of course the less true this will be.
I don't know about weapons inspectors, but in the case of industry regulators, the people actually working in said industry tend to be unimpressed with the wonks' knowledge.
https://monsterhunternation.com/2024/07/03/chevron/
But so many of the regulators *come* from industry!
From industry *middle managers*, not the people actually doing the work.
Elevating flawed men to the rank of false gods is the essence of humanity today.
Dc is the domain of the hedgehog, sf is fox country.
Great article but I would like a little more specifics about these so called wonks. Some concrete examples of these writers . Thanks 🙏
an update on patrick collison's 2024 reading endeavors: https://x.com/patrickc/status/1872592892373487765
> "Pleasure aside, should one read these books? Does one derive moral betterment from doing so? I'm not sure. ..."
the reasons he provides may prove illuminating
The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt was published in 1979, not 2001.
Very long. But quite interesting.