As a former literature grad student I was liking where the first clause of your sentence was headed, but then you ruined it with the sort of denunciatory name-calling ("sociopathic") that the HN guidelines ask you not to do in comments here. We're trying for a discourse in which people don't hit each other with such sticks, so please don't bring them in to conversation.

Seems to me the grandparent poster was using 'sociopathic' in a technical rather than pejorative sense, but it's true the word has become politicized. Perhaps 'hyper-individualist' would be a better representation of the philosophical dynamic at work.

I took the OP to mean "lacking in empathy, contextual awareness, and premised on a specific—and potentially very damaging—notion of capitalism." Based on the interviews I've read and the description of the Thiel fellows, this seems like a fair characterization, if hyperbole.

Rather, I think "sociopathic" is deficient in that it underplays the structural determinants of such behaviors, while placing judgment on the fellows themselves. That's not fair—they are basically high schoolers, often without the cultural capital and social analytical skills conferred by top schools.

I was going for the "lacking in empathy" description completely - and in description of specific endeavors, not individual people.

Look, Gawker was absolutely terroristic. Think about it, Mr. Thiel was closeted publicly, because it was noones business, and then Gawker outed him and his personal life for financial gain. They did it to others too. Mr. Thiel has said that Gawker was an isolated case for him, and it took him years to right wrongs..