Looking at all musk has achieved so far - despite (or because of?) boards of experts adamant it couldn’t be done - I think it’s immensely clear a plan is something he clearly has and works very hard towards.
Obviously many people will disagree with his plan, though I’m 100% certain he has one, and will make it happen.
> Looking at all musk has achieved so far - despite (or because of?) boards of experts adamant it couldn’t be done
This is where I think his detractors overlook the real benefits he brings. He is fearless and will willingly take long shot bets down roads where others don’t dare tread. His willingness to take the big risk has resulted in some transformative leaps. He’s either very lucky and not very good, or very good and not very lucky, but more likely has a lot of both going for him.
I'm 100% certain he is quite literally the biggest internet troll of all time. His words have caused volatility in crypto and stonk markets, and all as jokes to himself. He demanded his California workers continue working in large in-person groups despite a deadly virus pandemic without a vaccine at the time. His plan was to dangle a carrot in front of Twitter that he'd buy, then pull the rug out. He once again violated really commonsense ETF/FCC/whatever laws and once again got bit. He's a genius in many ways, and a playground bully in others.
Which ways is he a genius? I don't know much about him but as far as I can tell he's just an engineer who had a very rich father. Did he invent something that I'm not aware of? Genuinely asking, I would not be surprised to learn that I've missed something.
Lots of people have rich fathers. Almost none of them found multiple multi-billion dollar companies and become the wealthiest person in the world. Do you think there's not anything different?
If "having a rich father" is the only thing that matters, why isn't everyone with a rich father a billionaire?
It’s not the only thing which matters but it’s important to remember because these guys get so much public praise for being visionary geniuses while there are a ton of people who are just as smart and hard working but didn’t have the resources and luck to hit a high-return jackpot. For example, Bill Gates has been the subject of so many business books which love to describe him as a genius but while he’s far from stupid he wasn’t noteworthy compared to his peers: MS BASIC & DOS worked but they weren’t better than the alternatives – but those competitors didn’t have parents on IBM’s board, either. Prior to the Meta debacle, Zuckerberg got tons of laudatory press which tended not to focus on how much his early success was due to leveraging the Harvard network, or the almost forgotten classmate who went around the country getting sororities (and thus fraternities) to use it, great boosting its reputation as a place to be.
That matters personally because you want to set realistic expectations: if you can’t afford to write off a couple of year’s work, launching a startup probably isn’t the best call for you compared to a more staid job which means you don’t need to worry about rent money or health insurance.
It also matters societally because these guys really want to influence our laws, educational system, tax code, etc. and that context is critical. If a billionaire says we should cut taxes on startups to help people climb the ladder, the first question should be how much of the money will go to rich kids from Ivy League schools versus the ones featured in the ad. Similarly, if they’re pushing kids to drop out of college for startups or turning public schools into coding camp, we should be asking how that’ll work out for everyone: the prospects for a kid with affluent high-status parents and a robust social network are quite different from kids who are poor, brown, in the wrong part of the country, etc. and such a policy might be especially dubious if it meant that they have lower negotiating power to get better jobs at the companies run by people making such suggestions.
I've only heard that in the “brilliant kid, what a waste” quote describing his reaction to learning that Gates had left academia to start a company, which is a little less dramatic sounding from a then relatively early career professor but, again, the point is not that Gates was stupid but rather than his intelligence was only part of the story.
If you look at software of that era, he wasn't doing something nobody else could do. They had a BASIC interpreter, but it wasn't the first or notably better. MS-DOS certainly worked, but it was at least heavily inspired by CP/M even if the plagiarism accusations were wrong. Being a capable programmer was necessary to his success but it was far from the reason: there were many others around, and they did well but the legendary wealth came to the person whose mother was on IBM's board when he made that company-defining sale. He subsequently executed well but again not uniquely so — anyone who used Microsoft software of that era could tell you that it wasn't the quality of that software which kept people using it. He executed well, and certainly wasn’t shy about an … aggressive … legal strategy but there was also a substantial portion of nepotism and luck.
The world has many people who were smart and hardworking but will never be close to that level of success because they didn’t have the family connections, startups capitol, friends they made at the right school, or the freedom to make a big gamble.
I think you're looking at this as though it were a merit-based system, and it's unfair that Gates did so well when his merit alone deserves a much less level of success.
If so, what you're missing is that Gates knew how to play "the game." He knew how to close sales, how to navigate the muddy waters of business, and how to leverage success into more success.
I think success takes a lot of hard work and little luck. Great success takes a little more hard work and a lot more luck.
I think Bill Gates, Elon Musk are all examples of great success. It doesn't mean they are vastly different from the similar hard working people in their fields. It just means that they did a "little" more combined with lots of other factors that put them where they are.
I guess the point is that the working 16 hours a day for years on something that might return billions but might also return nothing, is a lot more rational if you have a safety net that means you'll still have somewhere to live if it doesn't work out.
> Almost none of them found multiple multi-billion dollar companies and become the wealthiest person in the world. Do you think there's not anything different?
Lots of stuff is different. I know lots of people with very very wealthy parents. They don't want to run businesses... so they don't. The number of people who have the will and means is probably quite a lot smaller than the people who have the means.
Anyway you've just dodged the question by implying "surely there must be something" but I'm asking what it is. To clarify further, I would consider the marks of a genius to be someone who is either a prodigy (ie: exhibits mastery of a subject at a very early age or with little experience) or who has made significant and particularly novel contributions to a field or multiple fields.
> exhibits mastery of a subject at a very early age or with little experience
He wrote and sold a computer game at 12 years old after teaching himself to program at 10.
> significant and particularly novel contributions to a field or multiple fields.
Made eletric cars a viable economic prospect, pioneered reusable rockets. Obviously not making every single technical contribution himself, but leading the process.
I don't know, I guess if you're just predisoposed to follow journalists who want to push him as nothing as a cringy nerd, you might not consider that significant, but clearly the market does.
> I don't know, I guess if you're just predisoposed to follow journalists who want to push him as nothing as a cringy nerd, you might not consider that significant, but clearly the market does.
I literally said I don't follow anything about him and was genuinely asking why people call him a genius. He's obviously a cringy nerd but that's not what I'm looking for.
Anyway I guess the game thing seems somewhat impressive, I'm not sure I'd qualify it as "genius" but that's something.
I mean, if you were actually curious you could have spent 5 minutes reading Wikipedia or any number of other sources for what people attribute to him. It's not like the information is hard to find. Like, the guy builds one company that literally becomes the most valuable in the world, and another company that builds rockets that a lot of people said were literally impossible and you just write that off as "oh he didn't do anything special, he just had a rich dad". I mean come on, it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.
I didn't expect a "why he's considered a genius" on the wikipedia page but I can check that out. I expected a pretty simple answer. I asked this about Kanye the other day and got a great response explaining how his music was novel.
Business accomplishments are impressive but I don't think they make someone a genius.
Why would business accomplishments not make someone a genius? Business requires creativity and intelligence just as much as any other field of human endeavor.
Tesla (the company) didn't invent electric cars, but they were the first to make electric cars that people actually wanted to buy.
They were expensive, small, underpowered, and had poor range. Musk took a weakness (expensive) and turned it into a strength (luxury status symbol) by just embracing that making a high-performance electric car was going to be really expensive and marketing it as a toy for rich people to show off how rich they are. Then, he used the profits from that to scale production and bring down the price for future models.
I don't know if he invented this business strategy, but it's a least a pretty brilliant application of it, along with the admirable goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions by putting more electric cars on the road. He also open-sourced all patents developed by Tesla, so other manufacturers could benefit from whatever they discovered along the way.
"Elon is brilliant. He’s involved in just about everything. He understands everything. If he asks you a question, you learn very quickly not to go give him a gut reaction.
He wants answers that get down to the fundamental laws of physics. One thing he understands really well is the physics of the rockets. He understands that like nobody else. The stuff I have seen him do in his head is crazy.
He can get in discussions about flying a satellite and whether we can make the right orbit and deliver Dragon at the same time and solve all these equations in real time. It’s amazing to watch the amount of knowledge he has accumulated over the years."
Kevin Watson - chief of avionics at Launcher
Elon is definitely an engineer. He is deeply involved with technical decisions at spacex and Tesla. He doesn’t write code or do CAD today, but he is perfectly capable of doing so.
John Carmack
When I met Elon it was apparent to me that although he had a scientific mind and he understood scientific principles, he did not know anything about rockets. Nothing. That was in 2001. By 2007 he knew everything about rockets - he really knew everything, in detail. You have to put some serious study in to know as much about rockets as he knows now. This doesn't come just from hanging out with people.
Check out Ashley Vance’s biography of Musk. One anecdote that sticks out in my memory is he was both scientifically knowledgeable enough and knee-deep enough in what SpaceX was doing to realize that they didn’t need to buy a certain hundred dollar (or something) existing part to use it for their rockets because they could make their own that did the specific thing they needed it to do for a few cents.
The "he had very rich parents" is often used to reduce one's achievements. A quick google search shows there are over 60 million "millionaires" in the world, yet less than 1% know how to turn it into a billion.
There is some pretty good evidence that wealth accumulation accelerates. In particular if you go above a certain threshold things will only go up (and go up faster). If that is the case and if we add some noise to the system. Some percentage of people will always become billionaires just by luck alone (and importantly never loose that status). I'm not saying that Musk got there by just luck, but the existence of a billionaire does not proof he is a genius.
I think the Tesla's are cool, SpaceX is immpressive, I enjoy his online trolling but I don't think he is a genius. The rocket scientist he employs at SpaceX is a genius. I got caught up on the way you phrased your response-- I felt that it was written in bad faith with "he's just an engineer who had a very rich father, Did he invent something that I'm not aware of? ". However seing as you were responding to someone who elevated him to Genius I can see why.
So the assumption to be a genius is that you must start from zero? I completely reject that assumption. It’s false for so many true geniuses, like von Neumann. His dad was well connected, the same is true for John Stuart Mill and a bunch of others I can’t think of now.
This idea that every genius must be formed in a vacuum and can only be considered a “true” one if they can bootstrap themselves from nothing is an absurd idea peddled by underachievers who somehow find solace in their own mediocrity by nullifying the accomplishments of others who don’t fulfil their arbitrary starting conditions.
One doesn't need to be able to point to a specific thing which they invented while alone in their garage with no help from anyone else in order to be a remarkable person. Elon is intimately involved in the minutae of SpaceX engineering and damn, if landing orbital rockets on a floating barge isn't impressive enough for you, I don't know what is.
Obviously many people will disagree with his plan, though I’m 100% certain he has one, and will make it happen.