Larks comments on Open Thread, August 2010 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: NancyLebovitz 01 August 2010 01:27PM

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

Comments (676)

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

Comment author: Larks 09 August 2010 10:27:50PM 2 points [-]

Tell him you found his pitch very interesting and persuasive, and that you'd like to buy life insurance for a 20 year period. Then, ponder for a little while; "Actually, it can't be having the contact that keeps them alive, can it? That's just a piece of paper. It must be that the sort of person who buy it are good at staying alive! And it looks like I'm one of them; this is excellent!

Then , you point out that as you're not going to die, you don't need life insurance, and say goodbye.

If you wanted to try to enlighten him, you might start by explicitly asking if he believed there was a causal link. But as the situation isn't really set up for honest truth-hunting, I wouldn't bother.

Comment author: soreff 10 August 2010 12:51:20AM 1 point [-]

Then , you point out that as you're not going to die, you don't need life insurance, and say goodbye.

If the salesman is omega in disguise, is this two-boxing? :-)

Comment author: Larks 10 August 2010 11:12:12AM 1 point [-]

Well, kind of. Unlike in Newcombe's, we have no evidence that it's the decision that cases the long-life, as opposed to some other factor correlated with both (which seems much more likely).