I'm reminded of Bryan Cantrill's famous "Do not anthropomorphize Larry Ellison" diatribe: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2305

> It's not hypocrisy, it's the natural outgrowth of seeing other people as a collection of vague moving objects that either do things for you or cause problems for you.

Good object versus bad object, very Kleinian and appropriate.

Central to object relations theory is the notion of splitting, which can be described as the mental separation of objects into "good" and "bad" parts and the subsequent repression of the "bad," or anxiety-provoking, aspects (Klein, 1932; 1935).

Infants first experience splitting in their relationship with the primary caregiver: The caregiver is “good” when all the infant’s needs are satisfied and “bad” when they are not.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

I have a different but similar take on this: Imagine two WWI soldiers on opposing sides hunkered down alone in their trenches within earshot of each other. One yells to the other, "Man, I'm so glad I've got my twenty comrades with me!"

The other knows there's no way the trench could hold that many and says, "Don't like to me you bastard!"

The first guy says, "Oh, yeah, well how many do you have?"

The other says, "Only ten of us."

The other guy here has:

1. Criticized the first guy for lying.

2. Then lied himself.

Would you call this behavior hypocritical? No, probably not. Because hypocrisy only really exists as a valid criticism within a social sphere that presumes good faith and mutual respect.

But these two dudes are mortal enemies engaged in war. Being hypocritical is the least of the harmful things that guy is willing to do to the other, a list which also includes fun social interactions like stabbing him with a bayonet.

When I see politicians become brazen about contradicting themselves, the conclusion I come to is that they see the people they are making mouth sounds towards as beneath them and a less human Other that they feel no obligation to behave consistently towards.

It's what Adam Curtis covers in HyperNormalization. I think it's less that the noises actually have any specific effect and more that they just create chaos bubbles of what is true or not.

> It's not hypocrisy

I disagree there though unless one agrees that Musk has no morality. However, in the absence of morals, which is likely, it would still be perceived hypocrisy.

This is poetry. And it has the added benefit of being true.

> It's not hypocrisy, it's the natural outgrowth of seeing other people as a collection of vague moving objects that either do things for you or cause problems for you.

If that is the state of the art then what is the defense that regular people have?

Treat Musk as a moving object as well? Because the Valley seems filled with people singing Musk praises in order to raise money and impress his fanboys who are loaded with money (and get access to some of that money), while they'll openly admit behind close doors that Musk is a fraud.

Does hypocrisy need to be an intentional action to be considered hypocrisy? I don't think it does. I think we can externally evaluate actions and, regardless of underlying motives, assign a value of "hypocrisy" to it.

On the other hand, if we assume that hypocrisy requires intent, then what you've instead described is "just" garden variety narcissistic sociopathy.

you hit in the nail in the head, Elon Musk probably lives in a world where only he exists as a person and everyone around are just NPC's. Or maybe he believe he is nietzsche's ubermensch and thus is above the morals which bind us normal folk.

Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Elon Musk.

Or if you assume he is a psychopath who will say and do anything because he was born rich and has never had to face the consequences of his actions.

Same strategy as Trump then.

I find this armchair psychology a bit repulsive--the assumption that one has successfully dissected another and knows the base ingredients that make them tick. If you think about it, to think you know people (figures, if you like) inside out and that their behavior is simplistic and reptilian, is nearly as repugnant in itself as seeing speech as a mere series of levers and pulleys.

This is not far from how spectrum-y people see others unless they're motivated to overcome their deficiencies. I don't think that's a coincidence.