You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

OrphanWilde comments on Sidekick Matchmaking - How to tackle the problem? - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: diegocaleiro 23 October 2015 07:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (42)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 27 October 2015 02:02:06PM 0 points [-]

American culture has a presupposition that every problem has a solution - that you can win.

Yep... although there's an implicit "Other cultures don't think that identifying a problem implies a requirement to try to correct it" there, which I'm not sure I believe?

Comment author: Creutzer 27 October 2015 07:10:36PM 1 point [-]

If by implicit you mean implied by me, that wasn't intended. But I think other cultures do, to varying degrees, people more towards thinking that a problem is either unsolvable or that trying to solve it isn't worth the bother. I always feel like "Sometimes, when you're screwed enough, you're screwed" counts as a radical realisation in contemporary America.

Comment author: Romashka 27 October 2015 04:30:44PM 1 point [-]

Correcting the problem is required, but its expected efficiency is way lower than solving it. Or, sometimes, even just tolerating it.

For example, we've just had regional elections, and in the village where I live, there was exactly one candidate to choose from. Problem? Yes. Anybody really against it? No.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 03 November 2015 05:05:16AM 1 point [-]

It was similar in the US state where I used to live.

Comment author: Nornagest 03 November 2015 06:39:38PM *  0 points [-]

It's not too uncommon for candidates to run unopposed in local, sometimes even state, elections in the US. It's not the norm, exactly, but every so often you get an office where only one person has the time, interest, and availability to mount a serious campaign.

Comment author: Lumifer 03 November 2015 06:49:25PM *  1 point [-]

See e.g. Georgia's election to Congress in 2014 -- seven out of 14 Congressmen ran (and won) unopposed. Or Massachusetts -- six out of nine unopposed.

There are also hereditary fiefdoms -- e.g. Newark, NJ.

Comment author: Nornagest 03 November 2015 07:59:46PM *  0 points [-]

At that level, it looks like it mostly happens with incumbents, especially in districts so politically polarized that the other party can't mount a realistic challenge. In these cases, the real challenge to the incumbent, if there is one, would happen at the primary level and the Wikipedia page wouldn't pick it up.

I don't know how common primary-level challenges are. I wouldn't expect them to be universal, but I did see at least one entry on that page (Ralph Hall, for Texas' fourth district) where the candidate defeated an incumbent in the primary and then went on to win the general election unopposed.