politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
"what the fuck" are you confused about?
The last sentence
Consider the 2016 election and the dangers of writing someone off.
Initially, the GOP establishment wrote Trump off as a flash in the pan. He'd enjoy an upswing, probably do something really dumb, and either way voters would come to their senses ahead of primary voting.
By the time the GOP establishment realized how big a threat trump was, it was too late.
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign was pushing for Trump as GOP nominee, assuming he'd be an easy opponent.
We know how that turned out.
Trump is not Musk, it's not a direct parallel, but it illustrates the dangers of underestimating someone.
Everyone deluding themselves into thinking Musk is an idiot (or 100 IQ) are creating conditions favorable to Musk.
(I wouldn't be surprised if Musk is of above average intelligence but not a true genius).
The article literally says "110" which is indeed above average. Furthermore, I don't think anyone is underestimating Elon at this point: he built a cult of personality over twenty years that last to this day (smaller than it was a decade ago, but still there) and he bought the presidency.
He can do all those things and not be generally smart. His skill, like trump's, is lying in a distracting way. Neither of them is likely to ever invent a new thing or necessarily even be good at anything else. But they don't need to, society values distracting liars above most everything else.
You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into.
If you're looking at a guy's resume and it includes graduating from UPENN and getting admitted into Stanford, then launching/guiding/acquiring multiple successful companies and you're then concluding "nah this guy ain't smart" or "i'm not sure if he's smart" it's a position you reached not through logic/reason.
The author is taking a shot in the dark on Musk's IQ and what the author wants it to be. 110 is normie. Isaacson, a very respected biographer, claims Musk's SAT was 1400, which would have put him somewhere around ~93 percentile. I want to see proof of that score, but I'd guess Musk' IQ is around 125-130 and around 95-97 percentile.
Trying to boil Musk's success down simply to lying is vastly underestimating him and playing in his favor.