= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
WhyAsk comments on LINK: An example of the Pink Flamingo, the obvious-yet-overlooked cousin of the Black Swan - 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)
Comments (75)
These people are being paid to make these kinds of difficult decisions for the good of "their people" and not just to avoid demotion. Anyone can make easy decisions. And they don't have to be right, they just have to meet The Reasonable Person standard.
But, there was a Dilbert cartoon that said you shouldn't even be in the same room when a decision is made.
I guess a world court would charge these 'leaders' with Dereliction of Duty, fraud, incompetence, negligence, etc..
Not that a solution would ever be implemented or that politicians would ever evolve into better people, but how would a Game Theorist approach this nasty problem? This could be added to Dr. Miller's videos.
As far as dropping bombs on your own guys, see Carpenter's Crispy Critters.
So, can you give some global politics examples where it's entirely obvious that a Reasonable Person would do X and yet "world leaders" (that means Putin and Obama, right?) do nothing?
The war on drugs is pointless, yet U.S. administrations stubbornly persist with it.
The US public wants politician who are tough on crime and as a result over a long time no politican opposed the war on drugs.
I don't see why that means the politicians aren't reasonable even if I personally don't support the war on drugs.
For a very good reason. When soft on crime politicians took power in the 70s, crime proceeded to increase to unacceptable levels.
Having a high number of policemen seems to be good for having lower crime rates. Giving those policemen the task to go after drugs on the other hand isn't. The Portuguese model of dealing with drugs is much better.
The tough on crime model also doesn't lead to lower recidivism rates. It would make more sense to incentive prisons to produces lower recidivism rates.
Why? Are you saying all currently illegal drugs should be legalized? In which case you might what to look at what caused them to become illegal in the first place.
That line of argument isn't going to go well for you, see e.g. marijuana.
The article glosses over the reasons for criminalization except for a single unbacked reference to "xenophobia".
Also what about cocaine and heroin. The example of cocaine is illistrative, after Friedrich Gaedcke first isolated cocaine it took decades to realize how dangerous it was. Part of the reason was that he and his doctor friends didn't have problems with it. Turns out that 19th century doctors had been selected for unusually high willpower.
Furthermore, the fundamental problem of which the isolation of cocaine was emblematic is getting worse as technology improves.
Google is your friend. The criminalization of marijuana is well-documented.
So we have nothing to worry about plants humans consumed for millenia -- like Cannabis sativa and Papaver somniferum?
Unless chemists start concentrating the relevant chemical, or they're used by people whose ancestors haven't had millennia to adept to them. Yes, this applies to alcohol as well.
Thanks, I needed a big laugh today. Your grasp of artificial selection is completely ludicrous.
Wow, you totally fail at reading comprehension.
Hint: the word "selection" has meanings besides the biological one.
Still implausible. At which point did willpower factor in the career path of an aspiring 19th-century doctor (in a way that it doesn't today)?
I never said it doesn't today.
Cocaine is not even close to as dangerous as heroin, the physical debilitation from alcohol and cannabis is far more extreme than anything with coke, in fact most are underwhelmed and cannot see the point.
But also at whether the problems that their prohibition has caused are bigger or smaller than those it solved.
Moral panic, mostly. A very hypocritical one, considering how tobacco and alcohol, two very dangerous drugs, are still perfectly acceptable in the Western world.
What do you mean, pointless? The War on Drugs has enormous benefits for certain kinds of people.
Let me list you some. It keeps the restless natives in check. It's a good excuse for expanding all kinds of the power of the state. It's an excellent excuse for just confiscating people's wealth and as such it funds a large portion of the prison-industrial complex. It provides lots of prisoners for the said prison-industrial complex.
How can you keep civilization running without keeping everyone fearful of the Holy... err.. Evil Trinity of drug lords, child pornographers, and international terrorists? X-/
Maybe you want to talk about the agency problem with your elected officials -- in that case try down the corridor, Mr. Barnard; room 12.
You are straw-manning. The war on drugs almost certainly reduces drug consumption and has almost certainly stopped lots of people from having their lives ruined by drugs.
I'm strawmanning whom?
Notice that I'm actually objecting to polymathwannabe's claim that the War on Drugs is "pointless".
I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that you were strawmanning the social benefits of the war on drugs.
I consider these benefits to be much lesser than the costs. But, as I pointed out, it depends on the point of view. It's an ill wind...
I thought he was being sarcastic. But my sarcasm meter is terribly miscalibrated.
Certainly not by allowing a specific court to judge politicians for every political decision that it doesn't like. That would be a good recipe for civil war.
Thanks for all answers.
I still have notes from Durant's "The Lessons of History" so I should comb through these replies using this source, looking for contradictions.
This thread is perhaps an outlier as to the Level of Nesting.