5 ms·

And what does your response reveal about yours?

by KerrAvon 4y ago

systemvoltage 4y ago
Thinking rationally and putting emotions/ideology aside. I know you meant it as a rhetorical snark.
- maxbond 4y ago
  If you look at Musk's career and public activity and conclude that the only way to believe that some reporter might get the goods on him in a way that radically changes his public perception is by ideologically motivated reasoning, then I don't think you're being nearly as dispassionate and rational as you believe. This is a man who regularly throws public tantrums and picks really petty fights against anyone who tries to hold remotely accountable (eg, harassing the rescue diver who called out his publicity stunt, or trying to get the ex-SEC lawyer fired from his private sector job with zero provocation). He's shown that he's willing to act impulsively and inappropriately if he feels slighted. Is it so hard to imagine that he crossed some serious boundaries, or will in the future? If we enter a recession and funding gets tight, have you absolute confidence that Musk wouldn't lie to investors to secure funding, and perhaps end up facing the same charges as Holmes? What could this man, a stranger to you I presume, have possibly done to earn that trust? I doubt his board members and major investors would take that on faith. I've actually never heard someone make an informed analysis about a topic, and then spend their breath deriding people with different views. I believe when people have conviction in their analysis, they generally feel secure presenting it and letting it stand on it's own. But the folks who want to rationalize their beliefs need to constantly tell you about how factual and logical they are, and how the people who disagree with them are the opposite.
  - knewter 4y ago
    > I've actually never heard someone make an informed analysis about a topic, and then spend their breath deriding people with different views. Newton / Leibniz would like a word
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Fair enough, that is indeed a counterexample. I'd suggest that as a general rule it's still the case, but that part of my comment was probably better left unsaid anyhow.
      - knewter 4y ago
        Maybe we should have more Newtons and Leibnizes, rather than fewer.
        maxbond 4y ago
        In what sense? We can always use more brilliant mathematicians and scientists, but I'd imagine if they put their energy into understanding their different perspectives and exploring calculus and notation together, they could have achieved even more.
        knewter 4y ago
        you might imagine it, but it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that you can just pick a different branch from a choose your own adventure book that you think sounds rosier. People are people. The decisions those people made throughout their lives, that led to the behaviour that we might lament, are also the decisions that led to their world-changing discoveries. Rivalry has value.
        maxbond 4y ago
        It's a bit out of turn to call what I'm saying ridiculous and imply that I'm employing some kind of fairytale reasoning and not offer any evidence other than your own opinion. You're free to disagree but your opening is writing checks that the body of your argument is not able to cash here. I don't see how a "rivalry" that destroyed Libniz' career was useful; the discoveries you're celebrating had already been made. Rivalry may have value, though in my mind it remains to be seen, but backstabbing certainly doesn't.

And what does your response reveal about yours?

systemvoltage 4y ago

Thinking rationally and putting emotions/ideology aside. I know you meant it as a rhetorical snark.

maxbond 4y ago
If you look at Musk's career and public activity and conclude that the only way to believe that some reporter might get the goods on him in a way that radically changes his public perception is by ideologically motivated reasoning, then I don't think you're being nearly as dispassionate and rational as you believe. This is a man who regularly throws public tantrums and picks really petty fights against anyone who tries to hold remotely accountable (eg, harassing the rescue diver who called out his publicity stunt, or trying to get the ex-SEC lawyer fired from his private sector job with zero provocation). He's shown that he's willing to act impulsively and inappropriately if he feels slighted. Is it so hard to imagine that he crossed some serious boundaries, or will in the future? If we enter a recession and funding gets tight, have you absolute confidence that Musk wouldn't lie to investors to secure funding, and perhaps end up facing the same charges as Holmes? What could this man, a stranger to you I presume, have possibly done to earn that trust? I doubt his board members and major investors would take that on faith. I've actually never heard someone make an informed analysis about a topic, and then spend their breath deriding people with different views. I believe when people have conviction in their analysis, they generally feel secure presenting it and letting it stand on it's own. But the folks who want to rationalize their beliefs need to constantly tell you about how factual and logical they are, and how the people who disagree with them are the opposite.
- knewter 4y ago
  > I've actually never heard someone make an informed analysis about a topic, and then spend their breath deriding people with different views. Newton / Leibniz would like a word
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Fair enough, that is indeed a counterexample. I'd suggest that as a general rule it's still the case, but that part of my comment was probably better left unsaid anyhow.
    - knewter 4y ago
      Maybe we should have more Newtons and Leibnizes, rather than fewer.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        In what sense? We can always use more brilliant mathematicians and scientists, but I'd imagine if they put their energy into understanding their different perspectives and exploring calculus and notation together, they could have achieved even more.
        knewter 4y ago
        you might imagine it, but it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that you can just pick a different branch from a choose your own adventure book that you think sounds rosier. People are people. The decisions those people made throughout their lives, that led to the behaviour that we might lament, are also the decisions that led to their world-changing discoveries. Rivalry has value.
        maxbond 4y ago
        It's a bit out of turn to call what I'm saying ridiculous and imply that I'm employing some kind of fairytale reasoning and not offer any evidence other than your own opinion. You're free to disagree but your opening is writing checks that the body of your argument is not able to cash here. I don't see how a "rivalry" that destroyed Libniz' career was useful; the discoveries you're celebrating had already been made. Rivalry may have value, though in my mind it remains to be seen, but backstabbing certainly doesn't.