Tag Archives: Elon Musk

by - 0 comments

How Sure Are You?

Lately I’ve been struck by a surprising phenomenon finding its way into all kinds of discussions. That would be the expression of certainty.

It seems increasingly in many of the conversations I’m having that others have reached conclusions they feel no further need to revisit. It’s more than certainty. It’s absolute certainty.

Here are some varied examples:

Let me tell you what the Fed is going to do at its next meeting.

Let me tell you what the NASDAQ will do between now and Christmas.

Let me tell you how the conflict in the Middle East will end.

Let me tell you what Elon Musk is really after.

Let me tell you what’s ultimately behind climate change.

Let me tell you who is going to win the presidential election.

Let me tell you what’s going to happen to the nation after the election.

Note the lack of the words might, probably, likely, or even most likely. The statements above are followed by declarations of certainty. Needless to say, these utterances do not come from people who are experts in all areas of knowledge. Who can claim broad insight — approaching clairvoyance — across such a broad spectrum of complex topics? These statements are offered by ordinary folks whose opinions form much the way too many undisciplined declarations emerge in real time.

These days, I often find myself the least certain person in the room. I wonder, how can everyone be so sure about what they are proclaiming?

I work in a business where decision-making is data-driven. We have spirited arguments about work strategies all the time, and the boss doesn’t always win the debate. We argue with facts because there is shared value in our outcomes. Sometimes opinion prevails, but only when subjectivity is guided by objectivity.

We also require a lot of close listening before we get to conclusions. We know our choices have consequences on our company’s results, the actions of our customers, the well-being of our employees, and the financial impact on all our stakeholders. Data drives rigorous thinking. We take our choices seriously.

I realize company culture has little to do with random conversation or even the talking heads clamoring for attention on the media platforms that flood our lives. We are aware fake news creeps into all corners of communication. Somehow a justification for lying has woven its way into popular opinion, where the deliberate application of false information seems to some less of a vice in mainstream conflict if it is deemed a means to an end. Still, when I hear people parrot incoherent arguments expressed by others either for some concocted agenda or strictly entertainment value, it surprises me how willing we can be to compromise our credibility for nothing that would warrant it.

I wonder how so much claimed certainty continues to pierce our uncertain world. The internet fills our lives with noise. You’d think it would humble us to seek more truth before we convince ourselves we have found an answer. You’d think our personal character and integrity would matter more to us. We are endlessly willing to let a social media algorithm drive conflict in our discussions and stir our ire, rather than invest a bit of time validating our expressions before we pile onto the verbal brawl.

Do I expect this to change broadly anytime soon? Probably not. It’s too easy to speak without citing facts, to claim the right to say what we want, when we want, how we want, and believe this is without consequence because one voice self-corrected has little bearing on arena spectacle.

Yet that’s not true. One voice self-corrected is an example that leads to another and another. If those with authority won’t lead by example, imagine the influence of the broad population accepting the burden of that same leadership by caring enough to speak with a tad more precision.

I’m not suggesting anything outlandish. It’s a matter of individual commitment to modest self-reflection over boisterous hubris. Before you say something with absolute certainty, simply ask yourself: How sure are you?

_______________

Photo: Pexels

by - 0 comments

Weak Thinking

I’ve been a student of philosophy for most of my adult life. It’s a passion, it’s an indulgence, at times it’s an obsession, and it’s a driving force in many of my most consequential actions. Digging through the canon of thousands of years of argument — hundreds of thousands of pages of dense text — can be vastly unsatisfying. It’s not for everyone. It becomes obvious there are far more questions than answers, and the answers that emerge do so largely to be impeached and reconsidered.

One of my key takeaways from this often senseless pursuit of the abstract is that the difference between reasonable inquiry and fabricated drivel is discipline. A noble premise or argument usually embraces long periods of study, focused meditation, and incorporated strings of historical context. Saying stuff because it happens to occur to you is not the same as constructing a point of view built on the readings of diverse schools of thought.

Weak thinking seems to be thriving these days in our universities. While I am fully in the camp of maintaining free speech on college campuses, praising the right of individuals to speak their minds is not the same as celebrating poorly articulated points of view. I also think some of these students better learn to get a thick skin and learn to hear words that are objectionable without expecting institutional protection. If students think they are graduating into a world where their feelings are going to matter to their adversaries, they better understand that there are few anointed referees handing out self-esteem shields.

So let’s assume we all have a right to weak thinking, we all will be exposed to it, and almost no one is going to protect us from it. Does that leave us in a world where all opinions are valid and to be polite we should smile and nod when we hear garbage thought? We should not. When we fail to incorporate proper intellectual discipline into our viewpoints, we should be knocked back to sensibility.

When Sam Bankman-Fried said he would willingly flip a coin if he knew that heads would make the world twice as good and tails would enact its destruction, he wasn’t expressing a valid philosophy. He was expressing the kind of stupidity that results in dangerous consequences, even beyond the absurdity of the abstraction. Imagine if he had retained wealth and power with this worldview. He would have made even more bad decisions that affect too many of us. The world should be spared this dose of weak thinking while he contemplates his theories in prison.

When viewers on TikTok recently discovered the manifesto of Osama Bin Laden expressing his fanatical Letter to America, some decided that this was a hidden revelation that pointed to an alternative point of view on terrorism. Are there two sides to the tragedy of 9-11? Does the weak thinking of a handful of younger citizens not yet born when terrorists took the lives of thousands in the attack on the World Trade Center warrant further discussion? No, this is not serious inquiry, not a valid call for plurality of opinion, it is rubbish. It is appalling and they should be told as much.

When a prominent business leader like Elon Musk decides to publicly acknowledge that an antisemitic rave is the “absolute truth,” is this just another opinion from a high-profile individual who has deeply considered the implications of his political expression? No, it’s lazy, spur-of-the-moment madness from someone who has convinced himself that success in some aspects of his career translates into broad intellectual authority. It is essential that we separate Musk’s technological accomplishments from his broader persona. He is a philosophical lightweight with an attention span disorder and grotesquely poor manners. His weak thinking is glaring, tone-deaf, and hateful.

These are but a few examples of the power of weak thinking to undermine civilized discourse and lead masses astray. Too many people still gravitate toward iconic figures to do the hard thinking for them. They also choose to invest unlimited time in scraping the surface of summarized ideas rather than focus on the detailed construct that might or might not support the idea. Said another way, if you want to buy into an idea, you can’t read enough about where it came from, how it’s been argued, and what it might really mean.

You might be left wondering who I think gets to be the arbitrator of weak thinking. Each of us has this specific right as well as the power to exercise it as it applies to our own opinions. The amount of energy we invest in considered thought is a choice. In my current observations, weak thinking is becoming endemic and putting our shared interests at risk. If you agree, read more, listen more, and at the risk of producing more unnecessary conflict, apply the discipline necessary to separate debatable philosophy from buckets of bull.

_______________

Photo: Pixabay

by - 0 comments

The Throes of Attention

Some people suck all the air out of the room. You know the kind.

Some people try to suck all the air out of the internet. You also know the kind.

What do we miss when the signal-to-noise ratio is self-cancelling? How much valuable information might we be missing when a small cast of characters forever desperate for attention floods the airwaves with endless “look at me” pageantry?

I don’t need to hear anymore for a long time about Elon Musk. I don’t care about his transformation of Twitter into X and whether advertisers will embrace it. X is not a town square I frequent. It’s CB radio. Who listens to ads on CB radio? Let’s call the Isaacson biography definitive and put this subject matter on the shelf for a decade to see if it improves with age.

Hunter Biden has humiliated himself, his father, and the nation. He doesn’t have the good sense to retreat, apologize for abusing privilege, and start the long road toward repentance. Instead, we get to hear that he has done nothing wrong and will fight back with every resource someone else is willing to fund on his behalf.

The only thing I want to hear about Sam Bankman-Fried is when he’s going to be convicted of felony fraud. The human interest story around the benevolent “why” of his deception crimes is manufactured and disingenuous. A con man of this magnitude is unworthy of sympathy.

Lauren Boebert doesn’t know how to behave like an adult at a musical on tour. End of salacious story. I don’t care if she claims the reason she is disgracing herself is because of the lingering effects of her divorce. If you have no manners, don’t go to the theater, stay home. Oh wait, she has a seat in Congress.

Senator Bob Menendez gets caught with a room full of gold bricks and suit pockets stuffed with cash but doesn’t have the good sense to resign. Now we have to listen to why he is being victimized and will fight to retain his office no matter what. This is not a noble fight. He ought to slip away quietly while he can.

George Santos won’t go away. He can’t stop lying. There is not a token of substance in any proclamation he utters. Turn off every microphone in his reach forever.

Does it occur to any of these people or the media covering them that they are unworthy of this much attention? Has the notion of humility and decorum so left the public stage that none of these people can muster the good sense to be quiet? Is the media so equally desperate to remain relevant that it has found symbiotic bonding with a nucleus of spotlight seekers who revel in the throes of attention?

I won’t even embark on our upcoming election. Consequential? Yes, beyond belief. Filled with vital news or endless, self-aggrandizing, lowbrow drama. Yours to channel choose.

I have written before about noise and how necessary it is that we navigate it to sane retreat. The cacophony of attention-seekers can make us numb to more inspiring stories of triumph and self-sacrifice. Gossip may grab headlines, but it teaches us little. There are always voices fighting to break through the rancor and tell us things we need to hear.

Voloydymr Zelensky wants us to know what is really happening in Ukraine, why his people are giving their lives, and the threat Putin poses to the world order. Do we have time left to listen?

Children of 9/11 fallen firefighters are stepping into the shoes of their parents and joining FDNY to continue a legacy of public service. Their parents were brave and made the ultimate sacrifice to save the lives of others on that unforgettable day. Do we know who they are or how their lives unfolded?

In each of the ceaseless weather disasters we’ve heard about — wildfires, hurricanes, tornados, you name the storm — there are heroes who have selflessly saved lives, risked their own, rebuilt communities, and never given up caring for those in need. How many of their names do we know? Can we follow their living examples if we never learn what they discovered?

There was a time not long ago when getting attention was something people earned for doing good, not asking to be celebrated, and then quietly ceding the platform to someone else worthy of a big moment. I remember it well. I think maybe it was right before the advent of social media.

We live in a world of TikTok attention spans where every mobile phone is a video window to the world, but can we tell the difference between useful information and filled space? There will always be those with an insatiable appetite for celebration whether they’ve earned it or not, but changing the channel is always our choice.

Don’t be misled and don’t waste your time. There is usually a better story to hear. It just might take a little extra tuning to tune in something worthy of your attention.

_______________

Photo: Pexels

by - 3 Comments

Are You Smarter Than Elon Musk?

I’ve written before about Elon Musk. He’s impressive on many levels, but he needs a bit of humbling on behalf of his peer group. He knows what he knows. He doesn’t know more.

I don’t need Elon Musk to teach me about free speech. He doesn’t have the credentials.

I also don’t need Mark Zuckerberg to teach me about community, openness, or how we’re going to live in the meta future. He’s a guy who sells online ads. He’s not a futurist.

The opinions of these people outside their realms of expertise aren’t just conflicted; they are arrogant, self-serving, naive, and potentially dangerous.

Wisdom is not fungible. Insight is not fungible. A person can be really good at something and nothing else. They just don’t know it, or perhaps they choose to embrace a platform of pretension. Self-aggrandizement is often a spoil of war.

A thought leader with demonstrable success in one category has no de facto claim to distant adjacencies. A celebrity, even a business celebrity, doesn’t become a subject matter expert beyond their recognized success simply by claiming the public microphone and turning up the volume.

Knowledge is not transferable by sheer force of will or cult of personality. An ego like Musk would have you believe he can layer meaning where none exists. An agenda is not the same as a common belief set, or even a clearly defensible philosophy.

Your opinion of what constitutes the normal social limits or lack thereof around free speech is every bit as valid as that of Musk. He can spend billions and buy anything he wants, but that does not make him right, only influential. He can call himself a free speech absolutist, but he made that up. It’s a pithy expression meant to draw attention to himself, but consider Los Angeles Times writer Michael Hiltzik’s extrapolation of Musk’s mandate in a more chaotic application of the extreme unleashed:

“If that means that users will be able to post anything they wish on Twitter, no matter how redolent they are of ‘sexual harassment, group harassment, insults or name-calling, posting private info, threatening to expose private info, violent event denial, violent threats, celebration of violent acts’ or any of the other violations of Twitter rules that currently allow the platform to shut down an account, that would be bad.”

You may agree or disagree. You may say Musk has agreed to abide by the law, but his interpretation of the law may not be yours. Musk is a contrarian who finds delight in arguing against laws and has no trouble surfacing the means to challenge high court opinions in endless adjudications. As long as there remains an appeal to be had, Musk can prevail with his opinions despite the collateral damage of their impact. None of that makes him correct in the abstract, but too often the power of holding today’s authority is confused with ethical vindication.

Your point of view matters on the issue, because you have the same foundation and standing to express your own point of view. What you likely don’t have are the resources at his disposal or the same hidden agenda he is not going to publicly express. What you probably do have is a touch of measured humility, balanced perspective, and everyday graciousness for those around you.

You’re also likely not putting on a show. Healthy policy debate deserves better than purchased amplification.

Proclamations can be noise alone, or they can have severe implications. We get fooled all the time by the loudest voices in the room claiming an ask that is more than what it appears.

Rich is fine. Successful is fine. Neither offers someone transitive intellect.

In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye sings, ”When you’re rich, they think you really know.” He wrestles with the irony of his dream. He wants to be sought by his fellow villagers as an all-wise sage and would gladly play that celebrated role in his community. Yet he knows from his deep faith he’s an ordinary man with or without money, not an inspired prophet.

We all have claim to an opinion. The validity of that opinion stands or falls on the credibility of its supporting argument and disciplined construct, not on the bank account or unaffiliated resume of its speaker.

If you think you know more about free speech than Elon Musk, it’s entirely possible you do. That would make you smarter than Elon Musk. I’m not sure it’s a compliment, but hold it in reserve should the foolishness you hear each day give you reason to stand up for your own well-considered belief system.

_______________

Photo: Pixabay