So if rationality is about winning and Trump won, is he rational? No, because rationality is systematic winning.
Trump seems to have been winning pretty systematically. It’s not like he’s a penniless loser with an ugly wife who randomly found a lottery ticket which entitled him to the presidency of the US :-P
(I’m going to take that comment a little more seriously than I think it’s intended, not least because I think it’s actually intended as “ha ha only serious”.)
There’s at least a credible argument that his wealth is basically inherited from his father (both by actual literal inheritance and via substantial help in the early days of Donald Trump’s own real estate business). That’s a systematic path to winning, all right, but it wouldn’t usually be called rationality.
Very rich men tend to have good-looking wives. (I realise that I don’t have actual data to back this up; is it controversial?) One possible reason is that rich people tend to be good at getting what they want, and men tend to want good-looking wives, which is basically the theory implicit in your comment; but there are a bunch of other plausible reasons that make the having-good-looking-wives a consequence of the wealth, in which case that’s not further evidence of anything beyond being rich. (Also: two divorces, at least one of which seems to have been on rather unfriendly terms. In my book that doesn’t count as winning.)
I will grant that getting elected president is a further achievement beyond getting rich.
But the main question is his ability to transfer his winning power in other domains, outside public relations with “deplorable” crowd.
Another question is his terminal values. He could be systematically rational and still dangerous because of his terminal values (may be to become a president was his final goal). If he obsessed with power, he will try to become a dictator and later try to get world domination.
Are we now judging people in here basing our considerations on the size of their wallet and their success with the opposite sex?
If that’s the case I should point out that Pablo Escobar at one point was worth 35 billions dollars , was more powerful than many countries PM and presidents and had sex with something like 2000 women …also Putin is allegedly worth 200 billions and he too beds a different mistress every day , plus (differently from Trump) he has the power and authority to singlehandedly force a nuclear strike
Donald Trump is a total buffoon , he’s not very bright and had a jumpstart in life , he’d been better off by buying bonds given that he’s been outperformed by the S&P , many of his businesses have failed and he was somehow spared a bankruptcy which would have left him without a dollar to buy an hot dog , he excels in social skills and persuasion (but again even does a con man) ; but somehow these seems to be attributes which are disproportionately linked to success in the US compared with any other 1st world country , maybe americans lack the capabilities to recognize con men and call them out on their BS ? Remember how characters like Jordan Belfort and Bernie Madoff acted undisturbed for years before getting caught , plus they did it in NYC , not Oklahoma or Alabama
If you want to see a guy who wins consistently if your definition of winning is somehow related to societal status , money and reproductive success (which is absolutely a stupid and primitive way of defining it) here’s your winner
EDIT : Mistyped the word buffoon , please forgive me I don’t quite have the words , the best words
Trump seems to have been winning pretty systematically. It’s not like he’s a penniless loser with an ugly wife who randomly found a lottery ticket which entitled him to the presidency of the US :-P
(I’m going to take that comment a little more seriously than I think it’s intended, not least because I think it’s actually intended as “ha ha only serious”.)
There’s at least a credible argument that his wealth is basically inherited from his father (both by actual literal inheritance and via substantial help in the early days of Donald Trump’s own real estate business). That’s a systematic path to winning, all right, but it wouldn’t usually be called rationality.
Very rich men tend to have good-looking wives. (I realise that I don’t have actual data to back this up; is it controversial?) One possible reason is that rich people tend to be good at getting what they want, and men tend to want good-looking wives, which is basically the theory implicit in your comment; but there are a bunch of other plausible reasons that make the having-good-looking-wives a consequence of the wealth, in which case that’s not further evidence of anything beyond being rich. (Also: two divorces, at least one of which seems to have been on rather unfriendly terms. In my book that doesn’t count as winning.)
I will grant that getting elected president is a further achievement beyond getting rich.
After I posted, I found this game theoretical analyzis of his actions, which is more supportive to idea that he was doing it systematically: http://www.growth-hackers.net/donald-trump-growth-hacking/
But the main question is his ability to transfer his winning power in other domains, outside public relations with “deplorable” crowd.
Another question is his terminal values. He could be systematically rational and still dangerous because of his terminal values (may be to become a president was his final goal). If he obsessed with power, he will try to become a dictator and later try to get world domination.
Hillary is much MUCH more obsessed with power than Trump.
Are we now judging people in here basing our considerations on the size of their wallet and their success with the opposite sex?
If that’s the case I should point out that Pablo Escobar at one point was worth 35 billions dollars , was more powerful than many countries PM and presidents and had sex with something like 2000 women …also Putin is allegedly worth 200 billions and he too beds a different mistress every day , plus (differently from Trump) he has the power and authority to singlehandedly force a nuclear strike
Donald Trump is a total buffoon , he’s not very bright and had a jumpstart in life , he’d been better off by buying bonds given that he’s been outperformed by the S&P , many of his businesses have failed and he was somehow spared a bankruptcy which would have left him without a dollar to buy an hot dog , he excels in social skills and persuasion (but again even does a con man) ; but somehow these seems to be attributes which are disproportionately linked to success in the US compared with any other 1st world country , maybe americans lack the capabilities to recognize con men and call them out on their BS ? Remember how characters like Jordan Belfort and Bernie Madoff acted undisturbed for years before getting caught , plus they did it in NYC , not Oklahoma or Alabama
If you want to see a guy who wins consistently if your definition of winning is somehow related to societal status , money and reproductive success (which is absolutely a stupid and primitive way of defining it) here’s your winner
EDIT : Mistyped the word buffoon , please forgive me I don’t quite have the words , the best words
Learn to spell “buffoon” before you call someone one.