Hacker News Reader

Comment by CommieBobDole | Hacker News Reader

I think Musk's behavior (and the behavior of a lot of public figures, really) makes more sense if you assume that he's not saying things to express ideas, but instead regards words as noises that you make with your mouth that cause other people to do or think things; if they stop having the intended effect, you have to change the noises.

It's not hypocrisy, it's the natural outgrowth of seeing other people as a collection of vague moving objects that either do things for you or cause problems for you.

View on HN

I'm reminded of Bryan Cantrill's famous "Do not anthropomorphize Larry Ellison" diatribe: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2305

That's wonderfully framed by Bryan. He's a treasure.

First thing I thought of, gonna have to rewatch that whole talk now.

I don't know what the reference is, but that is hilarious! Thanks.

> Do not anthropomorphize Larry Ellison

I'd go as far as saying "Do not anthropomorphize anybody whose name you know from media"

Do not treat them as people, treat them as ideas or maybe Sport Franchises.

Taylor Swift or Donald Trump or Elon Musk are like say the Cincinnati Reds.

If you are in a bar in Cincinnati and you want to drink without paying your best bet is singing the praise of the Reds, likewise if you are looking for trouble then attack and insult the Reds.

Same thing with Musk, if you are among entrepreneurs then be supportive of Musk , if you are among workers start attacking him vehemently.

Quoting the OP, Celebrities should become the words you spew in order to gain some small advantage while selling your products or when trying to influence people as per the book “How to win friends and influence people “

> It's not hypocrisy, it's the natural outgrowth of seeing other people as a collection of vague moving objects that either do things for you or cause problems for you.

Good object versus bad object, very Kleinian and appropriate.

Central to object relations theory is the notion of splitting, which can be described as the mental separation of objects into "good" and "bad" parts and the subsequent repression of the "bad," or anxiety-provoking, aspects (Klein, 1932; 1935).

Infants first experience splitting in their relationship with the primary caregiver: The caregiver is “good” when all the infant’s needs are satisfied and “bad” when they are not.

I will always upvote any psychoanalysis references on Hacker news. Love to see Klein here.

I have a different but similar take on this: Imagine two WWI soldiers on opposing sides hunkered down alone in their trenches within earshot of each other. One yells to the other, "Man, I'm so glad I've got my twenty comrades with me!"

The other knows there's no way the trench could hold that many and says, "Don't like to me you bastard!"

The first guy says, "Oh, yeah, well how many do you have?"

The other says, "Only ten of us."

The other guy here has:

1. Criticized the first guy for lying.

2. Then lied himself.

Would you call this behavior hypocritical? No, probably not. Because hypocrisy only really exists as a valid criticism within a social sphere that presumes good faith and mutual respect.

But these two dudes are mortal enemies engaged in war. Being hypocritical is the least of the harmful things that guy is willing to do to the other, a list which also includes fun social interactions like stabbing him with a bayonet.

When I see politicians become brazen about contradicting themselves, the conclusion I come to is that they see the people they are making mouth sounds towards as beneath them and a less human Other that they feel no obligation to behave consistently towards.

It's what Adam Curtis covers in HyperNormalization. I think it's less that the noises actually have any specific effect and more that they just create chaos bubbles of what is true or not.

> It's not hypocrisy

I disagree there though unless one agrees that Musk has no morality. However, in the absence of morals, which is likely, it would still be perceived hypocrisy.

This is poetry. And it has the added benefit of being true.

Yep. Poetry that leads to the horrifying realization that many of our elites live in a world surrounded by p-zombies, and somehow, this doesn't give them a moment's pause.

> It's not hypocrisy, it's the natural outgrowth of seeing other people as a collection of vague moving objects that either do things for you or cause problems for you.

If that is the state of the art then what is the defense that regular people have?

Treat Musk as a moving object as well? Because the Valley seems filled with people singing Musk praises in order to raise money and impress his fanboys who are loaded with money (and get access to some of that money), while they'll openly admit behind close doors that Musk is a fraud.

Does hypocrisy need to be an intentional action to be considered hypocrisy? I don't think it does. I think we can externally evaluate actions and, regardless of underlying motives, assign a value of "hypocrisy" to it.

On the other hand, if we assume that hypocrisy requires intent, then what you've instead described is "just" garden variety narcissistic sociopathy.

No hypocrisy does not require intent. I would say actually that usually it is reflexive and not intended. I w would go as far as saying we are all guilty of it sometimes.

you hit in the nail in the head, Elon Musk probably lives in a world where only he exists as a person and everyone around are just NPC's. Or maybe he believe he is nietzsche's ubermensch and thus is above the morals which bind us normal folk.

Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Elon Musk.

Or if you assume he is a psychopath who will say and do anything because he was born rich and has never had to face the consequences of his actions.

Same strategy as Trump then.

I find this armchair psychology a bit repulsive--the assumption that one has successfully dissected another and knows the base ingredients that make them tick. If you think about it, to think you know people (figures, if you like) inside out and that their behavior is simplistic and reptilian, is nearly as repugnant in itself as seeing speech as a mere series of levers and pulleys.

This is not far from how spectrum-y people see others unless they're motivated to overcome their deficiencies. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Please don't push this kind of stereotype. It's offensive and not even correct.

It's how many allistics see people, ASD folks just tend to be more self-aware about how social interaction works at a macro level (out of necessity).

I can't tell of the parent comment is a troll or just shockingly ignorant.

So let's just say, citation needed.

Yes, like how blacks steal and women belong in the kitchen...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com