You're viewing a single thread.
Why some of the smartest people can be so very stupid | Psyche Ideas
Basically many people who have the raw processing power or "IQ" to understand and analyse things can still lack certain "mental infrastructure" or education to understand things. This is especially atrocious for narrow minded people who actively rejected new information that doesn't fit into their mental comfort zone. Musk is definitely one of them.
This is the reason why we can't have nice things.
Musk is definitely one of them.
I've yet to see any evidence that Musk is particularly smart. What I've mostly seen is his ability to throw big parties and charm investors with bullshit business speak, while riding a wave of lucky bets and state subsidies to billionaire-hood.
No he's not. But he's also far from dumb.
‘On Stupidity’ (1937). At its heart was the idea that stupidity was not mere ‘dumbness’, not a brute lack of processing power. Dumbness, for Musil, was ‘straightforward’, indeed almost ‘honourable’. Stupidity was something very different and much more dangerous: dangerous precisely because some of the smartest people, the least dumb, were often the most stupid.
Musk is far from genius level but above average intelligence. He does have knowledge about rockets on a non-engineering level which you can see e.g. in this video talking about his starfactory (EDIT: Yes watching him in his element is kinda painful, knowing he's a fascist)
But he and others like him focus their thinking narrow mindedly on the pursuit of profit. Every decision is based on gaining wealth. THAT is by far the bigger problem.
Besides the focus of all education towards profit seeking, technical nerds also seem to "want to" see other fields like sociology or politics or history in a simple and easy to explain way. So they seek principles or the most simplistic social theories that don't explain anything real. Musk certainly falls into that.
Except now where he seems to go completely off the rails. Possibly a symptom of narcissism ever since he became unpopular, he's doubling down to find new validation for his fragile ego. So yeah in that sense he is not the best example.
My point was not just about Musk but about the idea of "finding the smartest people to rule". Because to anybody who is above intelligence that sounds smart except - stupidity can be more dangerous in intelligent people.
but above average intelligence
Maybe once. But that much Ketamine, plus his advanced age and excessive social media exposure, has degraded his ability to process information substantively.
He does have knowledge about rockets on a non-engineering level
He has prepared statements to read to a friendly interviewer. That's PR, not intelligence.
Besides the focus of all education towards profit seeking, technical nerds also seem to “want to” see other fields like sociology or politics or history in a simple and easy to explain way.
Musk isn't technical, he's a finance bro. And while I agree there's a strong "Education should be about making money" propaganda wave, I've noticed a lot of backtracking on this any time some group of labor activists starts passing around the financial reports of the publicly traded company to their coworkers. Then, all of a sudden, the finance bros become obsessed with sociology, politics, and history, at least in so far as they keep shouting and pointing to Venezuela any time someone at the firm mentions the company health care policy.
My point was not just about Musk but about the idea of “finding the smartest people to rule”. Because to anybody who is above intelligence that sounds smart except - stupidity can be more dangerous in intelligent people.
The fixation on "intelligence" as a discrete and quantifiable measure is what bothers me more than anything. I like to look at track records more than hypothetical quantifiers. Even if Elon were a "genius", I won't particularly appreciate the pro-eugenics track that brain power has sent him.
But I find it particularly galling when people conflate intelligence and success. So much of the modern economic system is about who you know rather than what you know. Elon Musk had access to enormous amounts of cheap credit, which he used to take a series of highly profitable gambles. He then leveraged his winnings to pull on more cheap credit.
Even setting aside whether that's "smart" or "stupid", I would say its a reflection of statistical probability. There are thousands of guys like Elon. Some make it, others don't. But what defines Elon in the end is simply luck. Recognizing him as exceptionally fortunate, rather than exceptionally smart or savvy, means pealing off the layers of PR and revealing the human underneath.
Musk is definitely one of them.
Musk is a rich trust fund baby whose fortune started off the back of Apartheid. It's not a shocker that he's a mask-off racist. He's done nothing to prove himself a genius, just a skilled grifter and financier.
I'd say it's more people who are repeatedly told they are smart can be very stupid.
Many of then might even be "smart", but the important part is having unwarranted confidence.
Complicating things is that society rewards confidence way more than it rewards competence. If I'm honest about a lack of competence in a certain area but someone else lies during the interview, good chance they are going to get the job over me.
The reality is that everyone can be very very stupid, and so long as each and every one of us is willing to accept and recognize our weakness we aren't as likely to be assholes.
It’s also important to recognize that smart people can and do fool themselves into believing whatever’s most comfortable to themselves, unless they actively develop the emotional fortitude to face reality.
Yeah true. But like @[email protected] write it's also that confident behavior is rewarded. And narrow minded focus on profit is more efficient than being focused on other things. And they need to compete with others on this "game" who pursue the calculus of power. So humility is a really hard sell to them. And media is not looking at politics or politicians in that way at all.
I sometimes feel this lack of emotional fortitude when thinking about reading a book, because books often break up your worldview and require you to adjust. There is a kind of intellectual pain of disillusionment.
And they need to compete with others on this "game" who pursue the calculus of power.
Such compulsions are a function of lacking the kind of emotional fortitude I’m referring to.
Spineless people of poor character “need” to pursue upward movement along the gradient of power.
The philosopher Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, “If you learned to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.”
Said Diogenes, “If you learned to live on lentils, you would not have to be subservient to the king.”
Once again, it comes down to material conditions.
The trouble is that they do need to compete with people who do pursue power (or wealth) relentlessly. So there are hard calculations. Those who don't play don't get power and won't change anything. Those who do want to chance things and want other things than just power are at a (big) disadvantage. Even with the best of intention, the game plays you.
I believe the solution would be something like more rules or systems in place to focus on this kind of pursuit and call it out and dissuade it. Like develop social tools to change the rules of the game. No clue how though. Maybe AGI.
Great article, thank you for sharing.