Hacker News Reader

Comment by buboard | Hacker News Reader

Musk is a physicist though, and i m pretty sure Musk is a frequent subject even when politicians speak. They have not reached out to the public in ways that Rowling or Obama have, so it's natural that the public feels them distant. Bill gates earns some respect for his low-key activism but he s not too prominent either. Scientists who reach out can garner respect, Thatcher was a Chemist, Merkel is a physicist. It's true however that the non-rich comp.scientists are virtually unknown or known for unrelated reasons (e.g. Turing).

A lot of it is just grooming: Lawyers (and doctors) are groomed and almost expected to have socially prominent aspirations. Programmers have not but it's not like they really asked for it, most tend(ed) to be politically aloof.

View on HN

Musk isn't a physicist. He's a programmer who retrained as a rocket engine specialist and business leader. Rockets involve physics but only in the sense that computers involve physics, they're applications of fairly basic physical theories. I mean, he's not doing string theory in his corporate offices.

Angela Merkel is also not a physicist. She studied physics and then published a few papers in 'quantum chemistry' but for basically her whole adult life she's been in politics. She's as close to a professional politician as you'll find.

I know it wasn't you but Rowling and Obama are odd picks for high status individuals. Rowling is well known but is currently having her reputation blown up and being stabbed in the back by the starlets she birthed, because she's not on board with "people can pick their own gender at will". Obama was high status when he was POTUS; where is he now? Does anyone know what he's up to these days? It's not Obama himself that had high status but the position.

In my experience Musk gets a lot of respect. I know a totally non-technical financial CEO who always cites Musk as his inspiration. The guy even likes to see himself as kind of like Musk which is hilarious to me, as he is slightly more likely to be struck by lightning than sit down with a pile of textbooks to learn a new technical skill. That's just not who he is.

> Rowling is well known but is currently having her reputation blown up and being stabbed in the back by the starlets she birthed, because she's not on board with "people can pick their own gender at will".

Wow. So much to unpack here. I’m getting the impression that you sympathize with Rowling’s views. I’m a little more immersed in trans issues than most on HN, so let me assure you that Rowling is flat out wrong. For example, in her essay she alluded to (but didn’t cite) studies that have been discredited. A lot of her central points are easily dismantled when faced with reality. Her arguments are only convincing if you aren’t familiar with the issues.

You also echoed the idea that trans people casually picked their gender. If you ever talked to a trans person I’m sure you’d realize just how wrong that idea is. All the trans people I know report feeling like they had little choice. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve head trans people say things like “I would give anything to be a cis X”. By portraying it as a casual choice you’re belittling the daily struggle trans people endure. It’s not “just a choice” if transitioning is the only way to suppress suicidal urges, and suicide is rampant among trans people. The 2015 survey found that 41% of trans people had attempted suicide during their life. The percentage of people who had considered it was MUCH higher, but I don’t remember the exact number. It’s not a choice when your options are live or die.

I’m speaking not only from the experience of participating in trans groups, but also as a trans person myself.

I don't take a position on Rowling's views one way or another, as I haven't really investigated them. I believe the quote is a reasonably accurate summary of her position but it's based on second hand accounts I've read in the press; can well believe it's somewhat garbled. My understanding is the argument is about whether people can pick a new gender without any biological changes/surgery, but who knows, maybe she's against hormone therapies too.

At any rate, my point isn't about the topic of trans people. It merely illustrates that Rowling's social status, such that it is, doesn't seem especially helpful to her right now, leading to the question of whether she truly has any. Elon Musk can get high in interviews, make tweets so controversial he gets literally gets fined by the government for them and he just keeps on trucking: apparently his status is far higher than hers.

> I believe the quote is a reasonably accurate summary of her position but it's based on second hand accounts I've read in the press

It isn't. At all. It is word for word what I'd expect from a malicious misrepresentation of what transgender activists believe and want to achieve. You may not be malicious here, but you are repeating phraseology that has been planted in the public consciousness by those who are.

> My understanding is the argument is about whether people can pick a new gender without any biological changes/surgery, but who knows, maybe she's against hormone therapies too.

There's at least three different arguments happening at the same time, all using the word "trans", making it really hard to pick apart which one any given person is using and making it really really easy for their opponents to paint them in a terrible light.

Even if Rowling is currently getting torn to pieces, and Obama is not making the front page every day, they leave behind a legacy in history and culture. What they say matters, even to their enemies, as the Rowling case shows.

musk studied physics though. and you cant be a phd chemist without being a physicist at some point. of course all politicians are primarily politicians at the time when they do politics but we 're talking about background here. Background matters because it creates a culture and a set of ethics. Popular figures are generally freeloaders riding on democracy's bias for popularity.

It's just that for lawyers , politics is almost part of their normal career progression: you go from law-student to law-maker. Political scientists or economists becoming politicians is similarly easy to grasp. Medical doctors and engineers less so, but what matters here is they are both regulated professions, regulated by lawmakers so there's a long-standing relationship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com