3 ms·

> A competition which then eats up the supply of this resource for the people it exists for: Actually disabled people with ADHD. If the system is so flimsy tha

> A competition which then eats up the supply of this resource for the people it exists for: Actually disabled people with ADHD. If the system is so flimsy that the only thing preventing abuse is a quiz and a doctors certificate, who are the "Actually disabled people with ADHD"? If diagnosis is so easily achieved and the rates of diagnosis around the world fluctuate so greatly, you should ask whether it's a largely inflated phenomenon and we need to reassess what it is and how we deal with it. Similar to depression, we seem to be medicating for slight deviations from what has been deemed normal, which is quite scary. As for the act itself, if they were stealing the answers to a test then I wouldn't say it was a sweet hack, I'd say they were cheating. However if you're willing to provide the benefit of an office, additional time, adequate cooling and access to reference material to a specific group of people, I say take what the system will happily give you or anyone else who goes through similar motions.

unimpressive 11y ago
>If the system is so flimsy that the only thing preventing abuse is a quiz and a doctors certificate, who are the "Actually disabled people with ADHD"? You're right, the biggest lesson to take from that story is perhaps we should give patients a bit more scrutiny before giving them an ADHD diagnosis. This is still not a 'sweet hack', nor is it laudable behavior. > However if you're willing to provide the benefit of an office, additional time, adequate cooling and access to reference material to a specific group of people, I say take what the system will happily give you or anyone else who goes through similar motions. You're right, from a game theory perspective in the long run we should expect 'rational' actors who aren't punished for doing this to do it until we start punishing them for doing it. That is completely orthogonal to the question of whether this is the incentive structure and behavior we actually want. You're basically saying people should push any system as far as they can before the system pushes back. This is what a low-trust society looks like and it's not pretty. One of the major benefits you get living in a 1st world country is the reasonable expectation of good behavior from most people you interact with. Part of maintaining that is social disapproval of people who are cheating off the charity of others.
- icanhackit 11y ago
  > from a game theory perspective [...] expect 'rational' actors IMO, the problem with taking a complex situation and reducing it to game theory is that you can miss some of the nuance and end up with binary results that don't fully agree with the mushy reality of human society. It's useful for constrained scenarios. Perhaps if you were dealing with a purely psychopathic, transaction-focused population it would be suitable. > You're basically saying people should push any system as far as they can before the system pushes back. Not at all - perhaps what's ultimately learned is that better conditions should be provided to all students. Just as we might want basic care extended for all persons, rich and poor, rather than means testing it. That way security is baked right in, everybody benefits, and there's less administrative process.

unimpressive 11y ago

>If the system is so flimsy that the only thing preventing abuse is a quiz and a doctors certificate, who are the "Actually disabled people with ADHD"? You're right, the biggest lesson to take from that story is perhaps we should give patients a bit more scrutiny before giving them an ADHD diagnosis. This is still not a 'sweet hack', nor is it laudable behavior. > However if you're willing to provide the benefit of an office, additional time, adequate cooling and access to reference material to a specific group of people, I say take what the system will happily give you or anyone else who goes through similar motions. You're right, from a game theory perspective in the long run we should expect 'rational' actors who aren't punished for doing this to do it until we start punishing them for doing it. That is completely orthogonal to the question of whether this is the incentive structure and behavior we actually want. You're basically saying people should push any system as far as they can before the system pushes back. This is what a low-trust society looks like and it's not pretty. One of the major benefits you get living in a 1st world country is the reasonable expectation of good behavior from most people you interact with. Part of maintaining that is social disapproval of people who are cheating off the charity of others.

icanhackit 11y ago
> from a game theory perspective [...] expect 'rational' actors IMO, the problem with taking a complex situation and reducing it to game theory is that you can miss some of the nuance and end up with binary results that don't fully agree with the mushy reality of human society. It's useful for constrained scenarios. Perhaps if you were dealing with a purely psychopathic, transaction-focused population it would be suitable. > You're basically saying people should push any system as far as they can before the system pushes back. Not at all - perhaps what's ultimately learned is that better conditions should be provided to all students. Just as we might want basic care extended for all persons, rich and poor, rather than means testing it. That way security is baked right in, everybody benefits, and there's less administrative process.