# Patrick Collison (@patrickc) — X (Twitter) creator profile > @Stripe CEO, @ArcInstitute cofounder. Analyzed 2026-08-11 from 200 recent posts. X profile: https://x.com/patrickc ## Archetype **The Analyst** — Brings receipts. Every take arrives with data attached. Traits: Evidence over vibes · Long-form depth · Contrarian when earned ## Stats | Metric | Value | | --- | --- | | Followers | 1.5M | | Following | 35 | | Lifetime posts | 10.3K | | Avg engagement rate | 0.58% | | Posts per day | 0.46 | | Reply share of output | 2% | | Avg likes per post | 1.5K | | Avg reposts per post | 108 | | Avg replies per post | 98 | | Avg views per post | 481.7K | | Median post length | 180 chars | | Posts with media | 40% | | Posts with links | 36% | | Posts asking questions | 18% | | Posts in threads | 0% | ## Posting rhythm Busiest day: Mon. Busiest window: 15:00-18:00 UTC. Engagement trend: steady (0.59% older half vs 0.56% newer half). ## Voice Patrick Collison's voice is that of a deeply curious, intellectually rigorous, and often delightfully tangential polymath. He explores complex ideas with a blend of historical context, technical… Topics: Technology & AI (35%), Economics & Business (30%), Culture & Aesthetics (20%), Science & Health (15%) Words they lean on: new, stripe, much, time, work ## What works for them **Deep dives into niche historical or cultural topics, often connected to current issues.** These posts demonstrate broad intellectual curiosity and provide unique historical context, framing current events or technological trends in a novel way. They often feel like curated essays, offering significant value to the reader. > I was walking to the office in New York this morning and noticed an arrestingly beautiful high-rise above me. Turns out it was the Woolworth building, which I'm a bit embarrassed to say I'd never noticed or heard of before. ## Top recent posts > I asked Claude about the air conditioning debate in Europe, and it really didn’t pull any punches. https://t.co/bA29683Hgh 23.8K likes · 2.3K reposts · 1.2K replies · 19.8M views · 1 media https://x.com/patrickc/status/2069451055142936709 > I was walking to the office in New York this morning and noticed an arrestingly beautiful high-rise above me. Turns out it was the Woolworth building, which I'm a bit embarrassed to say I'd never noticed or heard of before. > It was the tallest building in the world for 16 years (until 1929). Construction took 20 months. The architect was apparently inspired by European cathedrals; one clergyman called it "the cathedral of commerce". It contained its own power plant. It's adorned with the full Gothic package: gargoyles, spandrels, mullions, pilasters, corbels. It contained the world's fastest elevators when it opened. > The world is a museum of passion projects. 11.3K likes · 377 reposts · 323 replies · 961.9K views · 1 media https://x.com/patrickc/status/1973857593199329288 > I'm lucky enough to have a great doctor and access to excellent Bay Area medical care. I've taken lots of standard screening tests over the years and have tried lots of "health tech" devices and tools. > With all this said, by far the most useful preventative medical advice that I've ever received has come from unleashing coding agents on my genome, having them investigate my specific mutations, and having them recommend specific follow-on tests and treatments. > Population averages are population averages, but we ourselves are not averages. For example, it turns out that I probably have a 30x(!) higher-than-average predisposition to melanoma. Fortunately, there are both specific supplements that help counteract the particular mutations I have, and of course I can significantly dial up my screening frequency. So, this is very useful to know. > I don't know exactly how much the analysis cost, but probably less than $100. Sequencing my genome cost a few hundred dollars. > (One often sees papers and articles claiming that models aren't very good at medical reasoning. These analyses are usually based on employing several-year-old models, which is a kind of ludicrous malpractice. It is true that you still have to carefully monitor the agents' reasoning, and they do on occasion jump to conclusions or skip steps, requiring some nudging and re-steering. But, overall, they are almost literally infinitely better for this kind of work than what one can otherwise obtain today.) > There are still lots of questions about how this will diffuse and get adopted, but it seems very clear that medical practice is about to improve enormously. Exciting times! 9.6K likes · 632 reposts · 481 replies · 4.1M views https://x.com/patrickc/status/2045164908912968060 > Two conversations this weekend make me think that there's a vibe shift afoot in Silicon Valley around what one should work on and what is worthwhile. > Culturally, it feels like the moment is ripe for new frameworks: > • Davos expert morality is stale and discredited. > • It's also apparent that the "just be super based" Counter-Enlightenment is not really an answer. (Yes, woke went too far, but simply inverting it doesn't work.) > • EA is no longer the automatic default for smart people. > • There's increasing skepticism of slot and slop machine dynamics. > Overall, "what is worthy and valuable?" feels like it's becoming more central. 6.6K likes · 390 reposts · 526 replies · 2.1M views https://x.com/patrickc/status/1998172953016783211 > Instant Checkout in ChatGPT, powered by @stripe. https://t.co/kTqhoNkIet 6K likes · 415 reposts · 346 replies · 2.8M views · 1 media https://x.com/patrickc/status/1972718136857419871 > Someone asked me recently why I’ve become interested in aesthetics after having spent most of my life more interested in STEM-adjacent topics. I hadn’t really considered the question consciously before, but I’m certainly thinking about aesthetics more than I used to. I think it’s a confluence of things: > • Many things today are ugly and far uglier than they used to be or need to be. Once you see this, it’s kinda hard to stop perceiving it. (Early twentieth century phone boxes versus modern phone boxes; old water fountains versus new water fountains; etc.) As someone with a naively meliorist assumption that most things should be getting better rather than worse, it’s all a bit perplexing: why did we stop doing things nicely? Is it a choice? Was there a malevolent spell cast upon us? This vein led me to think more about modernism and why much of art became more intentionally "challenging", grotesque, opposed to prettiness, rebarbative, dissonant, etc. Can or should anything be done about this? Is this just how things ought to be? > • Relatedly, much of modernism involved a kind of explicit repudiation of cultural continuity and represented a schism with prior practices. This is maybe most evident in American architecture, where the International Style exhibition in 1932 initiated the displacement of a rich tapestry of prior styles. This cultural break seems important and interesting to me, and I suspect that the rejection had important consequences outside of the aesthetic domain. Samuel Hughes has been exploring this question in his recent writing at @WorksInProgMag; @RuxandraTeslo is also pulling on this thread. Elaine Scarry wrote about how beauty inspires creation. If so, the inverse may also be true: ugliness inhibits it. > • It’s clearly the case that changes in the aesthetic domain can at least inspire progress in other places. Petrarch helped set some of the preconditions for the Renaissance which in turn fostered the scientific revolution and Enlightenment. Things like World Fairs (the 1851 Fair at the Crystal Palace recorded 6 million admissions when the population was 21 million) reflect the popular interdependency that used to exist between aesthetics and material development. > • @tedgioia and others have written about stuck culture and how so many domains seem to have ceased to straightforwardly advance in the way that they did up until the nineties or thereabouts. This is obviously peculiar and interesting. What changed, and what does it mean? Is it about the internet and fragmentation? Is it about a loss of supply? Is it just about having reached the zenith of various mediums? > • I’m generally interested in markets and the dynamics of creation. In aesthetics broadly, I find the reflexivity between supply- and demand-side factors to be very thought-provoking. There’s a natural desire to view satisfaction of individual preferences as the yardstick to measure market success, but things get interesting and even a bit unsettling when we start to think about how the supply might start to shape the demand. I often think about this in the context of food. Why is food so much worse in Germany than many of its neighbors? Germany certainly doesn’t have less material ability to produce good food; indeed, Germany is richer than the countries around it. There’s probably something about German food supply chains that is impoverished relative to France and Italy, but the Germans themselves don’t seem too upset about it. It just seems that the Germans are stuck in an objectively worse market equilibrium than their neighbors: the food is bad and they’ve gotten used to it. The obvious question then is where else these kinds of reflexive patterns apply, and where else we’re stuck in some objectively inferior equilibrium, even if preferences are in some superficial sense being sated. > • While this is an extremely banal and obvious point, I hadn’t until recently thought much about or internalized how much one can study reasonably objective things ("the status of women in society", say) through artwork. (Thanks to @_alice_evans for opening my eyes here.) In this vein, I’m pretty excited about the possibilities over the coming years in computational art analysis. I want something that’s conceptually similar to Google Ngram timelines but for the visual arts. > • We've always tried to do things well at Stripe. I've come to see that attempting to do them beautifully is often a helpful way to break out of standard practices and to do something with greater novelty and in a way that might have other benefits besides. (Also, excellent people want to do great work because it is intrinsically satisfying. Explicitly allowing aesthetic considerations to carry weight avoids having to justify every assessment with some kind of torturous empiricism.) > • In his Nobel Lecture, Solzhenitsyn said that, among the Platonic virtues of goodness, truth, and beauty, that beauty is special, for it possesses a unique kind of irrefutability. He notes that arguments, writing, and philosophical systems can all be predicated on misapprehensions, but that “a true work of art carries its verification within itself.” He proceeds to observe that when goodness and truth are threatened, the “ever surprising shoots of beauty will still force their way through.” There is a lot of specious and motivated reasoning in the world today and plenty of questionable value systems. I don’t think that beauty directly reflects any definitive trait, but I’m intrigued by the idea that it can be a marker of deeper metaphysical coherence. 5.9K likes · 580 reposts · 493 replies · 1.4M views · 2 media https://x.com/patrickc/status/2083931939673878592 ## Related creators - [@levelsio (@levelsio)](https://xpert.so/creators/x/levelsio/md) — 930.1K followers - [Sam Altman (@sama)](https://xpert.so/creators/x/sama/md) — 5.8M followers - [Theo - t3.gg (@theo)](https://xpert.so/creators/x/theo/md) — 372K followers - [Matt Pocock (@mattpocockuk)](https://xpert.so/creators/x/mattpocockuk/md) — 325.9K followers --- Source: https://xpert.so/creators/x/patrickc Full analysis (hooks, weaknesses, engagement playbook) requires a free Xpert account.