Underlying this perspective is an implicit assumption that conventional social filtering - a practice as old as we can remember - serves no social good; that it's all just smoke and mirrors.
At the very least that's a remarkable assumption. We've been doing this for essentially ever, and it impacts all kinds of stuff. In some sense, musk is to CEO's what trump is to the presidency: all that diplomacy is just nonsense.
And - perhaps there's a kernel of truth to that; after all, the way we communicate has changed more radically than I think we really like to admit. I don't just mean the technology and the means, nor the social fashions: just read (transcripts of) old communication: I think we really think differently now than a few generations back. So perhaps old norms no longer apply completely.
But I'm not quite willing to assume that without at least some careful thought. I think it's at least as plausible that trump and musk (to be fair to musk: they differ in most ways, and trump is way more extreme) simply don't communicate very strategically at all. Despite all the hot air there's little upside; it's mostly mess.
Sure, it's entertaining. And as entertainment, that's fine. But would you want to actually deal with people like that? And if the world has changed in many ways, what hasn't is that you're going pretty much nowhere alone. You need cooperation and help to amount to anything constructive.
So: maybe there's a small chance this is the new norm and humanity has changed in pretty basic ways under the influence of todays pressures and technology. But there's also a considerable chance it hasn't.
>Underlying this perspective is an implicit assumption that conventional social filtering... serves no social good
There's a middle you're excluding here: that some parts of conventional filtering serve a valid social good, and that some parts don't.
Obviously this will vary on a case-by-case basis based on personal values. Which specific filters to accept/reject (and on what basis) make the difference between "abrasive CEO on twitter" and "guy throwing poop in Central Park."
>for the rest of us I'm not sure it's so bad. We get more of an insight than we might otherwise.
Some benefits: Criticism (especially of authorities), skepticism, and tolerance of speech and ideas are actually foundations of the modern world, and were even necessary for the proliferation of science against established power structures and human/scoial biases against eccentric pursuits.
I don't think we're getting a good deal in terms of signal to noise here. If anything, the irrelevant chatter distracts from important messages; making it hard to tell fact from fiction. And that's not a coincidence: by doing so a person can retrospectively claim that whatever statement turns into a particularly hot potato wasn't to be taken seriously; or that they weren't being precise.
This is definitely true for musk, and even more so for trump. They say all kinds of things in contexts where it really isn't reasonable for the reader to tell how serious they are, that then turn out to be pretty absurd, misleading, and/or self-serving. And those lies matter: e.g. when musk says something like "funding secured" - the only reason he gets away with lies like that with as few consequences as there were is because of all the only noise in his channel.
So while it's amusing to see these know-it-alls spout nonsense about things they just don't know anything about (but might have honestly interesting takes on), it's harmful that that's mixed in with normal communication. I'm skeptical that beyond the entertainment factor it's actually all that helpful to hear all that rambling that may or may not be uninformed - who knows which mode they're in right now? Fine for Musk to speak his mind: but it should be clear when he's vaguely brainstorming, and when he's being precise - and vague rambling should not replace communication you can rely on. So I hope he's held to account for what he says, because noise is harmful, and that's not even accounting for deceptive comments, which he seems to make too (e.g. funding secured).
Rather than looking at it in absolutes, you can look at it in terms of Evolutionarily Stable Strategy. In a world populated by PRBot CEOs, the one who speaks and acts like a real person will stand out, get attention, followers, detractors etc. In a world where everybody runs their mouth, the CEO that acts like a "Grownup" will achieve the same outcome.
Amassing a loyal army of followers (and, inevitably, an army of detractors) has worked out very well for him and could be one of the main reasons why Tesla has gotten as far as it has.
I doubt it's quite that simple, but sure: in essence that makes sense. But there's so many factors and interactions and feedback loops going on here...
> In a world where everybody runs their mouth, the CEO that acts like a "Grownup" will achieve the same outcome.
I would have a lot more faith in this theory if I didn't think CEO's and politicians jobs were as similar as they seem to be, and if I thought politicians prior to Trump acted "grownup".
As it is, I considered politicians to be poorly behaved in general, and then Trump was able to double down on poor behavior to his benefit.
I certainly prefer a world where people can be their honest selves and live openly according to their values, regardless of their level of power or visibility. (For better or worse.)
Calling calculated, dulled down communication designed to influence others (as opposed to convey one's views or feelings) as "strategic" is about as nice a way as one could put it.
I can't speak for PR as I have no qualifications there.
I'm brutally honest and open with people who can accept that. I've tried to work that into every relationship I've had (family or significant other). It is a lot of work to culture that kind of relationship, but it is worth it (and it has failed many times, don't get me wrong). Maybe you haven't had a scenario like this, but I'm sure you could imagine it: holding onto your emotions for far too long, not communicating them, until they become a major problem and are blown out of proportion.
It's the strangest thing about the human instinct, we think that we're making things simpler through our actions but we often make them more complicated. If we think about what we truly want, instead of what gives us immediate gratification (revenge), we'd make better decisions. Next time you're about to initiate a fight, step back and think about how you'd communicate exactly what you need.
Occam's Razor doesn't only apply to science, it applies to humanity. Musk is a "simple" person and, despite all his flaws (there are many), that's why he's a role model for this adult. All power to him for this PR experiment.
I think we all have different skills and Elon Musk skill certainly isn't social filtering. I agree he is bad at this and this is bad for business. But he is good at other things. So.. maybe you just can't have both.
The practice of “conventional social filtering” of mass media is less than a century old. It’s telling that people’s expectations are to have public figures scripted more like characters than human beings.
At the very least that's a remarkable assumption. We've been doing this for essentially ever, and it impacts all kinds of stuff. In some sense, musk is to CEO's what trump is to the presidency: all that diplomacy is just nonsense.
And - perhaps there's a kernel of truth to that; after all, the way we communicate has changed more radically than I think we really like to admit. I don't just mean the technology and the means, nor the social fashions: just read (transcripts of) old communication: I think we really think differently now than a few generations back. So perhaps old norms no longer apply completely.
But I'm not quite willing to assume that without at least some careful thought. I think it's at least as plausible that trump and musk (to be fair to musk: they differ in most ways, and trump is way more extreme) simply don't communicate very strategically at all. Despite all the hot air there's little upside; it's mostly mess.
Sure, it's entertaining. And as entertainment, that's fine. But would you want to actually deal with people like that? And if the world has changed in many ways, what hasn't is that you're going pretty much nowhere alone. You need cooperation and help to amount to anything constructive.
So: maybe there's a small chance this is the new norm and humanity has changed in pretty basic ways under the influence of todays pressures and technology. But there's also a considerable chance it hasn't.