• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Elon Musk explains the choice of materials

That was his biographer's conundrum. Would he have accomplished the same being nice to others? Does the good he has done justify the bad?

(I like the biographer a lot but it truly bothered me that he felt into the typical autism means lack of emotional empathy trope. We've had that thread many times.)
The autism component plays a part, the obsessive thoughts perhaps, the fear and anxiety over the future perhaps, the level of focus on a special interest perhaps, however, as you suggest in other posts, it's more than that. If you combine those traits with an incredibly high level of internal drive and competitiveness, then you create a different sort of person. Very few people enjoy being around any highly-effective CEO, especially those who actually built something from nothing. Some have claimed there is a high degree of sociopathy amongst CEOs. I've said this on a different thread recently, but these sorts of people, can be the nicest, warmest people if you can see their vision and are working towards that with them with a similar type of urgency, or they can be the most brutal, meanest people if you are perceived as an obstructive force or someone who is just not performing at a high level. They quickly weed out people and attract a certain type of employee or partner to work with. "NO" is not in their mindset. "I will" is and they are not asking anyone's permission to do anything. They will go around you or through you, so either step aside or get run over.

So, yes, if you are reading about how he gutted Twitter/X (to change the direction of the company) or more recently, he changed the support structure around his Supercharger team (to make it better), or walks into a meeting and immediately fires 3 out of the 6 people on a video call without warning, this is consistent behavior with these types of people. This type of behavior happens, and Elon has the spotlight on him, where someone like a Jeff Bezos does similar things most certainly, but doesn't get the media attention. As Donald Trump used to say and do on his TV show, "The Apprentice", "You're fired." Fine, he's a jerk, but the types of things he is doing are world changing, and hopefully for the better. He's our jerk for the time being.

I asked my two boys when they graduated from engineering school if they would like to work at Tesla or SpaceX and both were like "no way", but yet Elon's companies have so many applicants that less than 1% are hired. I am not aware of any other organization that has as high of demand from applicants. The people who work at his companies know darn well who they might be working for "if they are lucky" and are more than willing to do what it takes to be placed into that culture. If you are not innovating, you're fired. If you are not willing to put in 12, 16, 20 hour days, you're fired. You are expected to sit on a factory floor with a small group, engineer at the speed of thought, and make changes while the assembly line is moving. You are given that sort of autonomy. What takes other companies years to do, they do in an afternoon. They all know that. So, to sit back and say this is cruel to the employees is only showing how "soft" you are. Just like there are dogs, horses, cattle, working animals that get excited and enthusiastic when you strap on a pull harness, there are people who are very much the same. A select few. To judge that is demonstrating a lack of perspective. Some people would not have it any other way, and these are the people he hires and keeps on his team, the 1 in a 1000 or 10,000.

I am not a "fan boy". With open eyes, I have a good sense of the type of person he is. To me, for better or worse, he is a singularity. My boys don't like Elon. "He's not an engineer!" Not by a university degree, but he is self-taught, for sure. As the OP above pointed out, and as Sandy Munro of Munro and Associates has witnessed, he can walk into any design meeting at SpaceX with his engineers and competently discuss engineering formulas, their applications, materials science with some depth, then go to NeuraLink and discuss neurology, then go to the Tesla Motors factory floor and discuss the production line, then go to Tesla Energy and discuss battery technology and production, etc. NOBODY does this, or ever has. Elon does. In my mind, he deserves every penny. I'd give him more if he could move his companies faster.

I totally ignore all the FUD out there in the media. The half-truths and twisted narratives and utter falsehoods. The legacy industrial complex is putting billions into a media blitz trying every little angle they can, every day, doing whatever they can to ruin him, short his stock, pull the rug out from under him, it's obsessive to the point where no other person or group of companies has ever seen the like. Yet, the companies keep marching forward, if not one, the other, at different times. When you step back and see the larger picture, it's all quite the phenomenon we are witnessing. The autistic kid with a dream versus a gang of some of the most powerful corporate entities in the world. I'm just sitting back with a box of popcorn watching it all unfold.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure who would be a good analogy for Musk. Edison was an inventor, Musk is not. He is an entrepreneur. He didn't invent electric cars. He founded Tesla with 2 (or more?) others who had developed the technology (and then were involved in lawsuits about credit and agreed to stop insulting each other). He is not the inventor of rockets either or brain implants. He seems to me an idea person with a drive to work 24/7 and squeeze the soul and sweat of others viciously (and his) to achieve his visions. And yes, a very bright person who gets into the tiny little details about technology and production costs, but he is not an inventor like Edison.

I recommend his biography. I wanted to do some research before buying one if his cars and got into a rabbit hole.

I'm actually in this forum because of the biography. His behavior sounded so familiar in so many ways that I decided that I needed to explore more my autism. I could relate to his obsessions, his shutdowns, his emotional roller coasters, his apparent lack of emotional empathy and bluntness, an so son. Yet, there are no excuses for the nastiness.
There aren't too many truly impactful inventors out there, Edison, Tesla, but even these great minds are also known for making improvements upon existing designs. The modern incandescent light bulb, via Edison, was only an improvement upon an existing design. He tried and failed 100's of times before settling on something he could mass produce, was robust, and reliable. With AC and DC electricity, both Edison and Tesla played around with both before Westinghouse figured out which was going to make the company money and gave the nod to Edison.

Inventor or entrepreneur? Engineer? I am thinking Elon cannot be contained in any one of those categories exclusively. I wouldn't be too quick to discredit anything he's been able to accomplish, either by himself, or by the teams of people he has surrounded himself with. He does have a lot of input into his team's designs. His companies must make money in order to maintain forward progress. He must promote his brand at fancy conferences around the world. I am thinking he's doing OK.
 
Last edited:
Yes, people misunderstand the nature of inventions. A phonograph or a light bulb for example has many sub-parts to it, all of which were worked on by other people. So the concept that Edison invented the light bulb or commercial electricity is quite nuanced in and of itself - see this page.

That is why advances tend to happen independently and at the same time - because other people's building blocks make a vision possible, and then it becomes a race to see whose working implementation is more commercially successful. There's a term for it - multiple discovery.

"Use steel instead of carbon fiber" is one of the most original, bold insights I have ever seen - that's the kind of thing that makes a possibility into a reality, and should be considered an invention.

IMO, I think the Edison = Musk comparison is quite apt.
 
Some have claimed there is a high degree of sociopathy amongst CEOs. I've said this on a different thread recently, but these sorts of people, can be the nicest, warmest people if you can see their vision and are working towards that with them with a similar type of urgency, or they can be the most brutal, meanest people if you are perceived as an obstructive force or someone who is just not performing at a high level.
I have heard they are psychopaths rather than sociopaths.

OIP.jpg
 
That was his biographer's conundrum. Would he have accomplished the same being nice to others? Does the good he has done justify the bad?

(I like the biographer a lot but it truly bothered me that he fell into the typical autism means lack of emotional empathy trope. We've had that thread many times.)
Mental states are like spider webs. Pluck a strand and the other strands sag. The web doesn't properly transmit information to the spider.

I don't believe that anyone has ever giga-succeeded in business without a high degree of ruthlessness. Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, Jobs, and Musk are/were all cut from the same cloth. And they all revolutionized how we live. Whether ruthlessness in business is bad or not is a subjective call and depends on whether you were the one who won or lost in the game.
 
I have heard they are psychopaths rather than sociopaths.

1 in 5 appear to exhibit sociopathic or psychopathic behavior patterns. Likely a conservative number. The behavior is often the same, but the basic difference is that with sociopaths they are taught and have learned these behaviors out of some necessity versus the true psychopath that these behaviors are often present in childhood and appear to be born that way. Within the context of a large business, especially one that you started and have grown, the business is, in a way, perceived as "your baby or child", something to protect at all costs, even at the expense of people. Perhaps splitting hairs in terms of the end result, but motivational factors may be somewhat different. An interesting discussion here that may clarify:
 
:) Info dump warning! Psychopathy is one of my special interests. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a little like Asperger's and ASD. Some people diagnosed in the past still use sociopath but pyschopath is the accepted scientific term now. The term kept changing and the internet is full of contradictions and old/bad info.

But neither psychopath nor sociopath are DSM diagnoses. They are part of the personality disorder called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). (Part of the cluster B of personality disorders, a truly DSM mess because there is a lot of overlap between antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissitic PDs.) I think that there is a movement to move psychopathy from a personality disorder to a neurodevelopmental disorder like ASD and schizophrenia.

Among people who study the condition, psychopathy is the accepted term. If you want to find studies, that's the term to use. There are no sociopath societies but there are research societies that use the term psychopath, like the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy.

In the past sociopathy was thought to be caused by social conditions and psychopathy was from birth, but those were not well-recognized scientific realities.

Now the accepted terms are primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy. It's less about the cause . Mostly, the distinction is that secondary psychopathy is thought to involve anxiety and emotional instability, but some argue that is the result of trauma/abuse so there is the etiology issue mixed in the term.

The link below has an explanation and FAQs. This is a good source created by researchers in the field:

https://psychopathyis.org/what-is-a-psychopath/
 
Last edited:
I've never been a boss at work, granted, given my limited work experience, but I have been a leader of a group a large number of times. Decisions have to be made relatively quickly and some people will be happy about them, some won't be. You have to make a decision and someone will always be unhappy, or else the group will be stuck in analysis paralysis and nothing will be done. You need to stay focused on the task as well, and there are many people unhappy about it too, or some simply don't get it what needs to be done and see your decisions are incorrect and oppressive, but they're not the leader for a reason - they couldn't do it right, and hence nobody asks them for advice or guidance. If someone is unhappy about what you are telling them to do or else they have to leave, it doesn't mean they have legit reasons for their claims.

Firing people first time you see them might be an overkill, but it's definitely out of context. A boss can fire people for incompetence, it's part of the job description. We don't know the situation. And who is to say you can't judge people correctly over the time of a 20 minute meeting? Also if Musk wants to have a firm of determined tough enthusiasts, it is his right to do so. It's his company. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to work for him or buy his products. As far as I'm aware, it was not claimed that his businesses are run in a good work-life balance manner, if it was marketed otherwise, it would be a lie, but it's not marketed otherwise. I can't handle noise in my work environment, but I'm no stranger to working 12 hours a day and I would want to do that. It shouldn't be forbidden to work 12 or more hours a day if someone wants to. There is this strange socialist trend that you can't want to be devoted to working, can't be passionate about what you're doing. Some people also prefer direct, not "nice" communication and some people would claim it's toxic. I used to have a very corporate job. I thrived in the highly organised and to the point "stuck up" or "stiff" environment that it created. One of my friends claimed that all corporations are toxic and that it's a toxic environment, because people act to the point and it's toxic according to her. She thought the game industry is great and working in finance (my ex job) is awful, because everything is done according to laws and procedures and there is no room for showing feelings. There was a strict dress code and I felt okay with it, as I wear the same things over and over. She considered that awful too. It just shows how subjective the meaning of "toxic" can be. Some people are objectively mean, but working overtime and in noise are certain conditions that some people enjoy and can work in and some don't.
 
Last edited:
It's a question of degree too. It's difficult to be a "nice" boss. Sometimes hard decisions need to be made.

But we're talking about a person who has been sued for abusive behavior, violations of labor law, has settled sexual harassment lawsuits, and so on. That's beyond normal boss/leader behavior.

We do know details. Many are public record.
 
To balance this out, I know someone who was fired in the Twitter layoffs. Musk initially promised 4 months' severance including stock value at the time of purchase and payout of any vacation accrual. Then it ended up being one month. I don't think there's anyway to spin that in an ethical, "just how CEOs do this" way.

At the very best interpretation, it implies he carelessly calculated the assets he had and his ability to disburse these through layoff packages. When CEOs make mistakes, they have a large blast radius.
 
First, I wouldn't try to diagnose antisocial disorder just from a public persona any more than I'd diagnose someone as autistic. Psycho and sociopaths can be absolutely charming.

Within the context of a large business, especially one that you started and have grown, the business is, in a way, perceived as "your baby or child", something to protect at all costs, even at the expense of people.
To a good CEO, protecting business is protecting people. To their POV, it is sometimes necessary to cut off a nonperforming asset for the greater good of the whole. They are repeatedly faced with choices, and either choice they make will hurt one group and benefit another. No matter what they choose, someone will hate them for it.

That's not sociopathy, that's the job description of anyone with executive authority over any organization.

I think all CEOs are strongly on the competitive side. That's not the same as being a psycho/sociopath.
 
Last edited:
To balance this out, I know someone who was fired in the Twitter layoffs. Musk initially promised 4 months' severance including stock value at the time of purchase and payout of any vacation accrual. Then it ended up being one month. I don't think there's anyway to spin that in an ethical, "just how CEOs do this" way.

At the very best interpretation, it implies he carelessly calculated the assets he had and his ability to disburse these through layoff packages. When CEOs make mistakes, they have a large blast radius.
If he "carelessly calculated" and then discovered he couldn't do the full 4 months, then the people who were laid off would have gotten one month regardless. Miscalculation had mo material effect.

A public statement would have led to lawsuits if he failed to fulfill it, so I'd have to look at his exact words to see if it was a promise or a maybe.

I've been laid off from work more than once. I have never gotten more than 6 months of poverty-level unemployment from the state. I've been laid off and got nothing at all because I was either a contractor or hadn't worked for 6 months. Neither is eligible for unemployment.

I'm feeling jealous. He could legitimately have said you only get what your contract and the law require.

That's how CEOs usually do it.
 
It's a question of degree too. It's difficult to be a "nice" boss. Sometimes hard decisions need to be made.

But we're talking about a person who has been sued for abusive behavior, violations of labor law, has settled sexual harassment lawsuits, and so on. That's beyond normal boss/leader behavior.

We do know details. Many are public record.
Elon, himself, was not a part of the "abusive behavior" or "sexual harassment" lawsuits. It was a few individuals who were part of the Tesla team. The same for the "racial discrimination" lawsuits, victims and perpetrators were few on both sides, Tesla team members, not Elon. Much of this is the media FUD spinning it into some sort of business culture encouraged by Elon, himself. Out of the 140,000 employees at Tesla and some 13,000 employees at SpaceX, the combination of lawsuits included less than 10 people.

The "violations of labor law", put forth by union organizers in 2018, is simply accusations surrounding a Tweet by Elon, was never part of any written Tesla policy and procedure, and not been prosecuted in the court of law. More FUD. Tesla employees often have packages that well-exceed anything that the unions are proposing. Many early production line workers at Tesla who bought into the stock options are millionaires now. Any other place, the union simply costs the employer and the employee money as the unions are there to skim off a good chunk of those wages. Unions work in situations where the working conditions are unfair and unsafe, but not in situations where conditions currently exceed anything the union has to offer. Anti-union does not mean anti-worker, in some cases, you need to protect the organization and the workers from the union.

Joe Biden and Elon Musk have a bit of a feud going on, and the SEC, DOJ, and ACLU have been weaponized against him. It makes for good FUD articles and media coverage, but nothing has stuck as truth and prosecutable offenses.

Elon's companies are SO disruptive. Trillions of dollars of market cap are at stake. Pulling the rug out form the fossil fuel industry and automotive industry? Drilling tunnels, taking contracts from road construction companies? Changing the energy distribution from "big oil" to "big electric", but also implementing battery storage and decentralized power? Autonomous vehicles, including semi tractors used in trucking? Humanoid robots to fill and replace entry-level human jobs at a 1/3 the cost of human labor? The list goes on and on here. The status quo will change, but not without a fight from anyone who has a good thing going on and is unwilling to change. From highway billboards, to the daily barrage of FUD articles, to highly publicized lawsuits, fighting government entities, and so on, Elon has a target on his back. So, yes, he has to focus and be strong for himself and his companies.


So, yes, we do know the details and they are public record.
 
Elon, himself, was not a part of the "abusive behavior" or "sexual harassment" lawsuits. It was a few individuals who were part of the Tesla team.
Who do you believe?
Musk said the sexual harassment claim was politically motivated.

SpaceX reportedly paid the employee for her silence​


The flight attendant filed a sexual misconduct claim against Musk, and SpaceX paid her $250,000 in 2018 as part of a settlement that's bound by non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses, Insider reported.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/20/1100356233/elon-musk-sexual-misconduct-flight-attendant
D'oh!
Marc beat me to it.
 
Who do you believe?
Musk said the sexual harassment claim was politically motivated.


https://www.npr.org/2022/05/20/1100356233/elon-musk-sexual-misconduct-flight-attendant
D'oh!
Marc beat me to it.
I'm more inclined to believe the results of legal cases. Not ones brought up against him, but the end results. A sexual misconduct accusation at the height of the "me too" movement. It was and is a dangerous time for all men. A simple accusation, true or not, can ruin a man. She says, he says, but $250K to shut someone up is a small price to pay. We don't know what really went on there to judge one way or the other.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom