Peter Thiel on René Girard

So, Peter, thank you so much for receiving us in your beautiful building, and you are very close to René Girard, and so my first question will be, how did you meet René?

Well, I met him first as an undergraduate in the late 1980s when I was studying philosophy at Stanford. And it was one of these ideas that was sort of starting to percolate in the underground, that there was this very interesting professor with this different account of the world. It was very much, I think, out of step with the times. And so it had sort of a natural appeal to a somewhat rebellious undergraduate. I think there was certainly a conformity of ideas that one has probably in most times in most places. And there was certainly a sense in which it presented this very different critique both of the modern world, of Christianity, of thinking about a number of different topics.

So what would be your first impression, in a way, that could be, that is... He has a view of the world. What would be your first impression of René?

Well, the first impression of the view was that it's crazy and it can't be true that imitation is this important and drives this many different things. And I found that it was one of these ideas that took a while to sink in. But as I... as I thought about it more over a period of several years, it struck me as being incredibly powerful, describing both things that I thought were true of my own experience, as well as making sense of a lot of aspects of the world outside of that.

Yeah, it's like René Girard is a very controversial person, but he at the same time is a genius. Yes. And it took so many years, you know, for people to understand what you just said, that is, a main person, you know, to... in the world of philosophy and the way to see the world.

I suspect that when the history of the 20th century is written, circa 2100, he'll be seen as truly one of the great intellectuals. But it may still be a long time until it's fully understood. If you'd have a lunch discussion or a... discussion with him at some of the colloquium seminars that we did at Stanford, where one would really be struck just by his incredible perceptiveness into human nature. So it was not... It was always these very particular moments where this is what was going on. This is what really was happening in this context. And there was just an unbelievable perceptiveness. And of course, sort of a breadth of interest, too, where I think Girard is one of the last great generalists who's really interested in everything.

Yeah, and for me, it's like when I see René, I feel younger, I feel fresh and with new ideas to see the world and to go further in the world. Do you have the same perception?

Yes, exactly. I think it's always that there are elements of it where you see this completely new perspective on life that you would not have otherwise thought about.

And you are such a successful businessman, chess master, etc. Can you recount for the European public what are your main steps in your life?

Well, I did a number of things. I studied philosophy as an undergraduate at Stanford, went to law school, and then sort of veered into a professional law and finance career in New York. And then I moved back to California in the late 1990s and got involved in the technology boom of the time. I was the co-founder and CEO of a company called PayPal, which was a successful online payments company. And then from 2002 onwards, I ended up working more as an investor, working with a variety of tech companies, notably Facebook, where I was the original investor, as well as managing money, trying to figure out the future of the world, and still at the same time trying to pursue some intellectual, non-profit pursuits and trying to make sense of the future and trying to leave the world a better place.

Yeah.

And so, but how mimetic theory has influenced your business, in a way, your way to see the world and to do business? Well, I think it has influenced it very powerfully, although it's, uh, it's again, I—it's always sort of a very particular context. I'll give you two or three examples of how it has influenced me. I think one piece that's very important as both an entrepreneur and as an investor is that there's a tremendous value in trying to do things that are new or that are different. Thinking about how disturbingly herd-like people become in so many different contexts is something that mimetic theory forces you to think about, which is a sort of knowledge that's generally suppressed and hidden. And so, as an investor, entrepreneur, I've always tried to be contrarian, to go against the crowd, to identify opportunities in places where people were not looking.

And I think that those are the places one finds the greatest opportunities, whether it's in starting companies or in making investments. On the level of managing a business, one of the ways in which it's influenced me a great deal is thinking about how to avoid conflict within a business. So the standard account of conflict is that it arises when people fight about differences, whereas in mimetic theory, conflict arises when people fight about the same thing. And certainly my experience over the last 10 or 12 years is that that's almost always the case, that the really great conflicts were over people wanting the same thing, the same position, the same promotion, the same set of responsibilities.

And so one of the challenges as a CEO in a lot of these companies, I think, is to try to apply mimetic theory and preemptively avoid conflict by making sure that roles are reasonably well differentiated. And in an early-stage entrepreneurial setting, this is extremely difficult because the roles tend to be very fluid. And so there's sort of a tremendous possibility for mimetic conflict, and there's tremendous value in avoiding it. Most of these companies, whether they succeed or fail, is often driven by internal dynamics, not by external ones. It is whether the people are able to work together well enough to create a new product or build a new technology, rather than the sort of external competitive landscape, which is the way the conventional business world describes companies.

And what would be the ethic in business using mimetic theory? What would be the special ethic when you are so much involved in the process of making a better world?

Well, in business, I don't know if there's a simple formula that you can just say, 'This is the formula.' I do think that there's an incredible importance on avoiding certain types of conflict, and that there are ways in which there are a lot of conflicts that spiral in very, very bad directions. And I think they are counterproductive both in a business context, in a personal context, in a political context. And I think that's probably the piece that I find most compelling. But then also probably understanding what healthy relationships look like, where you're mentoring somebody in a way that's constructive, where there's no rivalry, and figuring out a good way to collaborate with people and trying to avoid the bad aspects of mimesis while keeping them good.

There's always, obviously, a very important question of how much theoretical knowledge translates into practical knowledge. You could have people who know that, in theory, eating lots of donuts is bad for you, but they still eat donuts or something like that. So there are all sorts of ways in which it doesn't translate. But I do think there is some way that it translates. It's very imprecise how that happens. But I do think, obviously, there's a general sense where scapegoating only works if you do not know who the scapegoat is. And so as the mechanism gets better understood, I think it will become harder to do. Now, it may simply manifest itself in other ways—new ways which may be better or worse.

But I do think there's a hope that as these mechanisms are understood, it will stop happening. As mechanisms of mimetic rivalry are understood, it will happen less rather than more. Yeah, so it's a very positive thinking about life and future.

Very good. Nowadays, everybody is so negative, but it's good. Everything is going to be destroyed.

Be something we've been to help people. Yes, well, it's, it's, um, it's certainly, um, well, I'm not, I'm not sort of always sort of Panglossian optimistic. I, I do think that sort of any hopeful future of the 21st century is one where there will be more good mimesis than bad mimesis. The forms of transcendence people buy into will be healthy, not fake. And so I think it is very much linked to whether the world blows itself up in this next century or whether we learn to figure out ways to live with one another.