I love how he doesn't consider himself an optimist. There's an important distinction between knowing that something is possible and going for it and hoping to accomplish something that may not be possible. I think many people confuse one for the other.
"All entrepreneurs have an aptitude for risk, but more important than that is their capacity for self-delusion. Indeed, psychological investigations have found that entrepreneurs aren’t more risk-tolerant than non-entrepreneurs. They just have an extraordinary ability to believe in their own visions, so much so that they think what they’re embarking on isn’t really that risky."
Actually I think his ability to perform "due diligence" on his own ideas both from a technical and a business perspective is one thing that sets him apart from other entrepreneurs. In my opinion there's also a big difference between doing something hard that's most likely valuable and doing something relatively easy that's uncertain if it's valuable.
Nah, according to an interview I saw with him, they were within one launch failure of folding. His original concept for SpaceX was to put a greenhouse on Mars -- a completely money-losing inspirational venture. By comparison anything else is more likely to generate a profit. So essentially, he was ready to light that wheelbarrow full of money on fire, so anything beyond that was just gravy.
Look up the incident where he crashed his super-car with Peter Thiel as passenger. Musk's an impulsive gambler.
This is not to take anything away from him -- he's a huge inspiration to me, and I believe that impulsivity is a necessary precursor to creativity.
"So I made three visits to Moscow, to Russia to look at buying a a Russian launch. [...] we actually did get to a deal. But there were so many complications associated with the deal that I wasn't comfortable with the risk associated with it."
"So I put together a feasibility study which consisted of engineers that have been involved with all major launch vehicle developments over the last three decades. We iterated over a number of Saturdays beginning of last year to figure out what would be the smartest way to approach this problem of not just launch cost but also launch reliability. And we came up with a default design."
Chris Anderson is the editor-in-chief of Wired. The other interview is with "Wharton doctoral student Brian Wu." Both would seem to be highly credible sources on the subject of successful entrepreneurs (not successful entrepreneurship, which seems to be the source of your dismissal)
Eh, editor in chief? That means he can write well. That's all. The idea that a guy like Elon Musk is successful because he's somehow delusional is idiotic.
You're being downvoted because your argument is "other people are wrong," and if you forward such an argument you are implicitly forwarding a character comparison: don't listen to that guy he's a dumbass, listen to me (because I'm not.)
It can work if you're some well-known personality. As far as you've told us, you are an unknown, unaccomplished person who expects us to believe he knows more about the successful entrepreneur's mindset than two people who have interviewed several extensively. Again, with no reason provided.
EDIT: And also, one of those people (Anderson) is an entrepreneur himself. So who, exactly are you? Sounds like you're just some guy who likes calling other people idiots because he doesn't like what they write.
I'm being downvoted because other people are wrong :)
My point is that sentence is wrong and thrown in to get page views. The fact that you can write well doesn't mean you know anything. It's no qualification at all when it comes to making an argument.
And also, one of those people (Anderson) is an entrepreneur himself. So who, exactly are you?
Me? Oh, I'm a professional poker player. I'm not very good at it, you see, so I'm currently writing articles about poker.
Well, actually, it is. And it's spot on. Some might have this fetish for rationality that claims if it's delusion it's a lie, whatever, you might think that too. Honestly, in a career path that requires a very big blind bet, and hopes for one in a billion, striking it rich opportunities, those not self-deluded enough about the importance of their start-up are probably going to quit, or not even try.
No, it isn't spot on at all. SpaceX wasn't "a big blind bet" at all. The guy is smart, and he listened to people who've been analyzing that industry for decades. The fact that he persevered after a few failures just means he knew what industry he was trying to break into.
Engineers have been scratching their heads since the '70s and wondering why the hell it costs so much to get something into LEO. There's nothing fancy about the hardware SpaceX developed, either. It's just a rocket company that's run like a business. There's no delusion required - what Musk brought to the table was boatloads of money and the experience of growing and running a business.
