And the same is true for many other VC types, who, if it were not for the fact that founders and companies need their money, would have the same intellectual and "lived-life" weight of your run-of-the-mills 9-to-5 office worker.
He speaks way too fast which gives the impression is "throwing up" words instead of making a point. Chill. It is an interview, not a slam poetry the-quickest-wins contest.
He is asked how to identify talent and after working in VC for 15-20 years he gives a made-up answer on the spot. I don't think he is guarding some secrets, it appears he has not developed a theory. Which is fine, or the theory is implicit, he is looking for "vibes" more than "hard" traits after all the necessary boxes are checked (smart, persistent, able to articulate thoughts). Hard to disagree. If there were a secret, it'd be out there already found. But the made-up answer was not impressive at all (a videotape of when they were kids? Come on).
He talks about web3 and he comes up with ways of monetizing, say, podcasts with proposals that you would expect from a teenager. At the end, he basically admits he has no clue and the future will take care of itself.
He has watched many movies, but he doesn't have a favorite one.
He seems unfazed by selection biases. Peter Thiel is a great at recognizing talent, he says. How many would be recognize with 1/1000th of his money and how many he did not recognize?
He repeats "insights" and "talking points" gotten from twitter, social media, the usual playgrounds that myself, a total nobody, could repeat with more flavor.
He had a few interesting insights (saying they were "brilliant" would be quite arrogant on my part), surely. Not enough to be considered "brilliant".