= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Xachariah comments on When is Winning not Winning? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (60)
I'm confused about your opening statement regarding 'different rules apply to the elite class.' Drug usage is not limited to the upper class, nor is admitting that you've used drugs limited to the upper class either. Obama could have hardly been called elite when he was using drugs, and barely even when he was writing that book. My friends and acquaintances are equally open about their past drug use.
To put it more succinctly, he was treated the same way most lower class drug users are. They receive no punishment and eventually grow up and do fine in life.
Your paragraph on 'Obama Winning, Penn is not' is similarly confusing. Obama is the President of the USA and presumably sitting on the hugest pile of utility on earth, but Penn Jillette is exceedingly rich sitting atop an estimated $175 million net worth. By my estimation, both are winning.
1) I think the op knows that, and maybe what he's saying is more like: isn't that people don't care about drug use, they like their tribal leaders to be "effective" rule breakers. An Obama who never did drugs might be less popular and less cool.
2) I assume you're saying that 'treated the same way' means not caught. Most poor and rich escape being caught, but that is very different than equal treatment once caught.
1 - yes exactly. Thank you.
2 - also in agreement. In the video Penn mentions a couple times that if Obama had been caught he'd be screwed, which is absolutely laughable. He would have been let off with a wink and a nod, due to his elite status. But I didn't want to side-track the post.
In general perhaps, this particular case I don't think so. Penn's vision for a fair society is being frustrated by the old boy's club, and without them even putting much effort into it. Obama is being rewarded for his place in the game, Penn is being handicapped by his (and fortunately has enough resources that the handicap is more than tolerable).
This seems like an overbroad definition of "winning"...
Let "winning" be "increasing one's own utility function". Or "achieving one's goals".
Utility functions can wildly differ (think psychopath vs saint), giving the appearance of an overly broad definition for "winning". But I think that's a proper one.
Well, okay, I just mean... the biggest factor in fulfilling that particular part of their utility functions is what utility function they have, not any particular ability or choice on their part.