[pjscott]

> Normal people do not do these things - the risks he took were abominations on a risk adjusted scale (if the recession continued to decimate the economy and kill demand for veblen goods and SpaceX didn't get that 4th launch - Musk would be done - as in out of money and out of luck).

I suspect that he just values things differently from you -- that he's less averse to losing large sums of money, and more averse to regretting opportunities passed by, than you are. You can call him crazy if his actions are a spectacularly bad way of getting what he wants, but if he just wants differen things than you do, that's a matter of taste rather than sanity.

> Which reminds me - the best investors are mentally damaged in some way, especially in terms of emotion (a distinct lack of empathy and emotion).

I wonder, if you raised the subject with some of these guys, what they would say to this.

[confluence]

> I suspect that he just values things differently from you -- that he's less averse to losing large sums of money

Truth. Same argument can be applied to terrorists and soldiers - they value the respect of their group and their families (in some cases this is monetary) over their own lives.

But then again - I presume most people think most terrorists would be damaged in some way (brain washed/delusional/lost parents) and soldiers in another way (PTSD/lose a friend/people die in front of you).

I'm not stating Elon Musk is, or is not, this - however I do find the parallels highly curious.

> I wonder, if you raised the subject with some of these guys, what they would say to this.

Kind of irrelevant if it's empirically correct.

[brianchu]

1. Terrorists value things differently

2. Terrorists are mentally damaged.

3. Elon Musk values things differently

4. Ergo, Elon Musk is mentally damaged (or more likely to be damaged, or this is an indication that he might be damaged, as is implied).

Total analogy fail.

EDIT: Since I can't seem to be able to reply to your reply (too nested): Bringing up the analogy in the argument and finding it curious indicates that there is some reason as to why it even applies, when in fact it is completely irrelevant.

[confluence]

I said the parallels were curious. If you read it correctly - I didn't state either way. I can't be logically incorrect because I didn't make a conclusion.

Secondly: http://sgforums.com/forums/2092/topics/154210

EDIT: Not necessarily. The relative percentage of CEOs, traders and investors who are psychopaths are much higher than the general population. We normally label such people as mentally damaged. Musk is both a CEO and an investor who doesn't think like normal people and fits into this group.

This does not mean he is part of the group though. It is merely interesting.