= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mitchell_Porter comments on The Power of Agency - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (73)
fMRI? Also, some HE would be failed HM. The model I'm developing is that in any field of endeavor, there are one or two HMs at the top, and then an order-of-magnitude more HE also-rans. The intuitive distinction: HE plays by the rules, HM doesn't; victorious HM sets the rules to its advantage, HE submits and gets the left-over payoffs it can accrue by working within a system built by and for HMs.
My point was that both the "honesty is the best policy" and the "never give a sucker an even break" crews are guessing because the information isn't out there.
My guess is that different systems reward different amounts of cheating, and aside from luck, one of the factors contributing to success may be a finely tuned sense of when to cheat and when not.
Yeah, and the people who have the finest-tuned sense of when to cheat are the people who spent the most effort on tuning it!
I suspect some degree of sarcasm, but that's actually an interesting topic. After all, a successful cheater can't afford to get caught very much in the process of learning how much to cheat.