This reminds me of Paul Graham’s essay about weird programming languages. Languages designed for people less smart than you seem dumb and powerless. Those designed for people smarter than you seem weird.
If someone seems weird I take that as a sign they may be playing a higher level game. (They may just be weird of course).
A lot of people think Trump is stupid and has low impulse control. Consider though that his uncle was a professor of physics and his sister was a judge. His father was too poor to go to college but showed every indication of being a very capable person. It seems unlikely he is over-endowed with low IQ genes.
How many people have strong opinions about Trump without much data to base that on? How many have read his books?
Read his account of how he worked his way around the bullyish teacher Theodore Dobias—a strategy that, if you believe it, required a lot of restraint and finesse.
That’s like saying that if you believe Trump when he says that he’s the person who respects woman the most, there’s no reason to think he’s a misogynist.
There’s no reason to believe Trump when he tells tales about how great he is.
Also the quality of the writing is only one thing you get from the books.
I didn’t even speak about the quality about the writing. A bigger problem than writing quality seems that you simply take the stories that Trump wants to have told about himself at face value.
The latest one does not seem to have been ghost written.
Could you make the case for why you believe it wasn’t?
If someone seems weird I take that as a sign they may be playing a higher level game.
Just a reminder that “higher level”, despite being a local applause light, doesn’t necessarily imply “good”.
For example, having BLM people interrupt Sanders’ meetings was a higher level game by Clinton. Doesn’t mean it was good for the voters, and it even failed to be good for her own victory (although the last part may not apply to some parallel Everett branches, maybe even the majority of them).
Similarly, Trump may also be playing a higher level game which will backfire; except that it will happen after the election. (The hypothetised WW3 scenario would be a most dramatic example; it will probably be something less dramatic.)
Going back meta: playing the game on a higher level doesn’t imply you are not making mistakes, such as getting short-term gains along with greater long-term losses; it just means that you are doing it on a different level.
This reminds me of Paul Graham’s essay about weird programming languages. Languages designed for people less smart than you seem dumb and powerless. Those designed for people smarter than you seem weird.
If someone seems weird I take that as a sign they may be playing a higher level game. (They may just be weird of course).
A lot of people think Trump is stupid and has low impulse control. Consider though that his uncle was a professor of physics and his sister was a judge. His father was too poor to go to college but showed every indication of being a very capable person. It seems unlikely he is over-endowed with low IQ genes.
How many people have strong opinions about Trump without much data to base that on? How many have read his books?
Read his account of how he worked his way around the bullyish teacher Theodore Dobias—a strategy that, if you believe it, required a lot of restraint and finesse.
Ghostwritten books tell you little about the intelligence of a person. They just tell you that he’s rich enough to afford a capable ghostwriter.
The Ghostwriter of the Art of the Deal wrote an article about what he learned writing the book for Trump: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
That’s like saying that if you believe Trump when he says that he’s the person who respects woman the most, there’s no reason to think he’s a misogynist.
There’s no reason to believe Trump when he tells tales about how great he is.
The latest one does not seem to have been ghost written.
Also the quality of the writing is only one thing you get from the books.
I notice that no-one seems to be claiming they have actually read his books.
I didn’t even speak about the quality about the writing. A bigger problem than writing quality seems that you simply take the stories that Trump wants to have told about himself at face value.
Could you make the case for why you believe it wasn’t?
Just a reminder that “higher level”, despite being a local applause light, doesn’t necessarily imply “good”.
For example, having BLM people interrupt Sanders’ meetings was a higher level game by Clinton. Doesn’t mean it was good for the voters, and it even failed to be good for her own victory (although the last part may not apply to some parallel Everett branches, maybe even the majority of them).
Similarly, Trump may also be playing a higher level game which will backfire; except that it will happen after the election. (The hypothetised WW3 scenario would be a most dramatic example; it will probably be something less dramatic.)
Going back meta: playing the game on a higher level doesn’t imply you are not making mistakes, such as getting short-term gains along with greater long-term losses; it just means that you are doing it on a different level.
Indeed. But that was not my point. I was arguing that Trump does not seem to be stupid.