site banner
non_radical_centrist  1yr ago (astralcodexten.com)   2453 thread views

Book Review: Elon Musk[Scott Alexander]

astralcodexten.com

Scott Alexander’s review of a 2015 biography of Elon Musk. Elon Musk, to me, is one of the world’s most confusing people. He’s simultaneously both one of the smartest people in the world, creating billions of dollars of value in companies like Tesla and SpaceX, and one of the dumbest, in burning billions on Twitter. Scott’s review I think is a good explanation of what’s up with Musk.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think Musk's goal was a combination of a) make money, b) further free speech, and c) be a cultural icon with lots of positive attention.

He failed catastrophically at making money on the purchase. He had some modest success at furthering free speech, but I don't think it was worth billions. He has certainly gained lots of attention but most of it was negative, maybe he still considers that a win, but personally I think he could've handled the PR much better with a bit more forethought.

I think Musk could've done much better at all three goals if he spent some more time thinking through what he wanted to do with Twitter before taking the CEO position and preparing more. And I think he would've been much better off if he just never bought Twitter and instead spent the money on some other project.

He failed catastrophically at making money on the purchase.

He did, but there was a general tech stock collapse after he locked in the Twitter price. People who dislike Musk love to act like he's responsible for the crash. However, Spotify, Shopify, and many others has more spectacular falls in that same time period.

He had some modest success at furthering free speech, but I don't think it was worth billions.

Let's assume you don't think it was worth billions, but Musk did. Who do you think is a better expert on relative worth of Musk's billions vs increase in free speech - you or Musk, the owner of the billions?

He has certainly gained lots of attention but most of it was negative

Why do you think it's bad for him? From what we can observe on Twitter, Musk loves to pick a fight.

And I think he would've been much better off if he just never bought Twitter

Obviously Musk disagrees (otherwise he wouldn't buy Twitter), but that's not the point. The point is why it is "dumb". I still don't see any basis for this - you may disagree about what Musk goals should be, but I think you must allow him to choose his own goals, even is you disapprove of them, and this disapproval should not count as him being "dumb".

Obviously Musk disagrees (otherwise he wouldn't buy Twitter)

I think Musk was mistaken about what would happen when he would buy Twitter. He was expecting it to not drop in value, and it did. If it was possible to get a refund on his purchase, I expect he 100% would. That is what makes him dumb in this context imo.

Maybe I’m wrong about Musk’s internal beliefs and values, I’m not an expert in Musk’s psyche. But it’s the conclusion I’ve drawn from what I’ve seen.

It dropped a lot (mostly?) before he bought it, at the same time Meta and everyone else did -- this is why he rather notably wanted to either get out of the deal or negotiate a price discount during due diligence.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats