Comment by kranke155 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kranke155 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

He’s a pretty good picture of a boring low-grade low empathy individual causing gigantic harm.

People get confused by the popular media depictions - sociopaths are just people with very little empathy and virtually no remorse. People who do tremendous harm are not sadistic cruel people, they’re often just boring people who have no empathy for others and show very little remorse or none at all when lying or engaging in deception - which is why it’s hard to tell they’re even lying - they don’t show the tells of self doubt and remorse that we use to detect deception.

As far as I know, Facebook has never innovated. It’s either bought or copied every single feature it’s ever implemented, with the exception of course of giant shameless data gathering on an industrial scale that has led to cognitive warfare being part of political battles in the West.

And now of course a huge increase in depression and mental illness due to poor incentives on their social media platforms. If Facebook/Instagram was a physical product that you would take, that lets say reduces anxiety temporarily but increases depression in the long run, it would likely be banned.

And of course they won’t fix anything because “reducing engagement” is a mortal sin for the company.

This is correct. When Hannah Arendt wrote "The Banality Of Evil" she was trying to communicate how ordinary and boring some of the monsters of history were. We might expect them to be dramatic figures like Darth Vader, but in reality they are just bureaucrats who have no empathy and don't think about the consequences of what happens when they sign some document.

Essentially. I didn’t want to go to the tired “but Nazis” analogy, but yeah basically the Russians killing civilians in Ukraine are just low empathy individuals. Same with Eichmann or whatever. These are just boring, low empathy individuals who don’t think much of anything that doesn’t affect them. Those people commit the evil, but often they’re not sadistic, they just don’t care.

Sure there are paranoid delusional maniacs who sometimes lead them (and then you see the real damage). But a person with very low empathy can create enormous damage. I see them often working in finance in London and ignoring the second order effects of ie tax avoidance schemes for the super rich, or selling real estate to the Saudis while going with their friends to the local LGBT disco. They just don’t care.

It's why Jordan Peterson seriously and intensely asks are you so sure you're not someone who could do those horrible things [if the circumstance weren't equal] - because he studied and wrote the book Maps of Meaning on this exact topic: understanding how the horror of tyranny come to be. His conclusion is weak individuals.

Pretty much. I’d say individuals without a clear moral center.

Bingo.

Part of the whole origin story of TheFacebook that falls in line with this is that his university actually had a print version of a compilation of people's face - I presume like a yearbook - that they were planning to make an online version of; it was actually called The Facebook from my recollection, and another place Mark wasn't creative or innovative and took from as well.

Apparently they were taking a long time to make the site, Mark couldn't understand why. The reason? Apparently the group who was working on bringing the print version online were brainstorming through the potential consequences of doing so.

I remember reading about it many years ago online in one of the university's student newspapers, I think I remembered it correctly but my memory of it is a little fuzzy; I believe it'll be in one of these articles: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/tag/mark-zuckerberg/

I don't think the problem at Facebook/Meta is that it's a mortal sin to reduce engagement, I honestly think they just aren't creative enough and they don't understand from foundational principles why they have what they have, nor how to improve on it in a nuanced way.

As you said it's basically an industrial machine with very few wheels, where all of the basic or crude parts are in place, where their guide is the most basic-shallow metric possible is whether engagement goes up or down; where it's the network effects that kept it together for so long. Mark certainly isn't a creative visionary, and so with him at the helm, all of his decisions of who he empowers under him will be random as to whether they are beneficial or not - but logical decisions looking at user numbers and growth made purchases like WhatsApp and IG no brainers.

Interestingly, you are actually correct, in that the original meaning for sin is aim related - and so because of their lack of sophistication, the only thing they see or know how to aim at are engagement numbers. The sin will be by not aiming at the only thing they are good at aiming at, where they otherwise miss the mark - and sin; is it irony that his name is Mark and he's arguably been missing the mark this whole time - or perhaps a generous perspective is that he's really good at hitting one specific mark, the Mark? Anyway..

In contrast, Elon Musk functions creatively, an imaginative open mind, and has developed an understanding of first/foundational principles that he works from. Twitter will likely be a good buy once Elon re-lists it. I'll still be investing in my projects though.

I have been working on my own platform solution to solve for our society in crisis mode. It unexpectedly was a relief when Elon bought Twitter, as I am primarily driven by necessity. Elon will course correct Twitter away from the ideological and censorship bent platform it was becoming, so at least there's one major battleship on our side, funded by the person who most definitely has Fuck You money and competent to boot.

>In contrast, Elon Musk functions creatively, an imaginative open mind, and has developed an understanding of first/foundational principles that he works from. Twitter will likely be a good buy once Elon re-lists it.

I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this, but I think there's more to Musk than this. He's incredibly intelligent, and has radically innovated in two industries (Space and EVs), but I don't think he has the maturity/emotional intelligence or societal vision that's needed for combatting the problems that Twitter (and social media) present to democratic societies.

I'm a massive fan of what he's achieved in many areas - and watch every Falcon 9 landing with the same child-like awe that I did the first one that nailed it, and I watched every Starship test live. But this is the same man who had a battle calling a cave rescuer a 'pedo guy' and I'd be surprised if Twitter goes in a direction which will benefit society in the way that EVs and making life interplanetary will do.

> I don't think he has the maturity/emotional intelligence or societal vision that's needed for combatting the problems that Twitter (and social media) present to democratic societies.

I can see where you are coming from with this, and I agree with the general premise, but I think about it a bit differently.

Twitter already had a few "mature" people with "emotional intelligence or societal vision" that ran it at different points in time, and yet here we are in Twitter's current state. Clearly something isn't working.

There is a non-zero possibility that someone like Elon (who is very unlike those previous people who ran twitter) might be exactly the right kind of a person to address the ailments of twitter and course-correct it. He could also fail miserably at it, but I think it is definitely worth a shot to find out.

Elon Musk is a highly creative individual, but I worry he has bipolar. I myself have bipolar, and his actions and things he’s said in the past seem to indicate he might have it too. He seems be in a manic phase at the moment. (He’s actually said once that he thinks he might have it).

If he doesn’t have psychotic phases and how bipolar is not so strong, he can be a high performance individual but I think it’s something he will eventually have to take a look at.

I had no idea he once stated he thinks he might have it. I've always presumed he had it based on his twitter posts. I have schizoaffective disorder, bipolar subtype, and his behaviour matches low-key bipolar very well.

Yep. I think if you’ve had bipolar his behaviour is so familiar it’s hard to believe he doesn’t have any of it. It definitely feels like what I had before I had my first “breakout” like I said - hypomania at least.

How can you tell, or what historical actions of his did you find to be very informative?

He said it himself.

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/elon-musk-admits-to-un...

I can’t tell nor would I diagnose someone I don’t know.

However - his current tweet storm has included imo a lot of Juveline type stuff. He also seems to be tweeting more than usual. - this matches with the impulsivity you’d feel in a manic phase. You’re also full of dopamine so you feel like you “can do anything”. This can lead to irresponsible behaviour and grandiose dreams that you feel “are totally possible”. - it’s possible he has a low-grade bipolar type mood swings. I had something like bipolar, but not quite, before I had my first psychotic episode. Very high highs and very low lows. Same as he’s described. I’m not sure if you can live your entire life this way, but it’s possible that it is and he’s a case. His behaviour certainly reminds me of my own previous to my outbreak. - one of the things that destroys you with bipolar and that they warn you about is compulsive buying. Your impulsive behaviour + money is the worst aspect of even a low manic phase, since you can easily blow all your money very quickly.

Looking at his purchase of twitter, his prolific tweeting, the way he’s acting in those tweets (juveline, impulsive) he really really reminds me of someone in a low-grade manic phase.

In a manic phase you are pumped full of absurd amounts of dopamine, so you have tremendous energy, you think you can do anything, you can fall into impulsive buying, and you are so led by impulse you can do a lot of irresponsible behaviour.

Him purchasing twitter reminds me of people who buy boats/homes in mania essentially. He doesn’t seem to have a master plan that I’ve heard about to turn it around. Even if he does have a master plan, his behaviour suggests mania to me.

Like I already said I can’t diagnose anyone, but his behaviour is so familiar I can’t help but wonder.

Too much drug use. He is an addict.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com