= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on Newcomb's Problem: A problem for Causal Decision Theories - Less Wrong
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)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (120)
Reminds me of a story, set in a lazy Mark Twain river town. Two friends walking down the street. First says to second, "See that kid? He is really stupid." Second asks, "Why do you say that?" First answers, "Watch". Approaches kid. Holds out nickel in one hand and dime in the other. Asks kid which he prefers. "I'll take the nickel. It's bigger". Man hands nickel to kid with smirk, and the two friends continue on.
Later the second man comes back and attempts to instruct the kid. "A dime is worth twice the value, that is it buys more candy", says he, "even though the nickel looks bigger." The kid gives the man a pitying look. "Ok, if you say so. But I've made seven nickels so far this month. How many dimes have you made?"
Which brings me to my real point - empirical research, I'm sure you have seen it, in which player 1 is asked to specify a split of $10 between himself and player 2. Player 2 then chooses to accept or reject. If he rejects, neither player gets anything. As I recall, when greedy player 1 specifies more than about 70% for himself, player 2 frequently rejects even though he is costing himself money. This can only be understood in classical "rational agent" game theory by postulating that player 2 does not believe researcher claims that the game is a one-shot.
What is the point? Well, perhaps people who have read about Newcomb problems are assuming (like most people in the research) that, somehow or other, greed will be punished.
Punishing unfair behavior even when it costs to do so is called altruistic punishment, and this particular experiment is called the Ultimatum Game.
Is it plausible that evolution would gradually push those 70% down to 30% or even lower, given enough time? There may not yet have been enough time for a strong enough group selection in evolution to create such an effect, but sooner or later it should happen, shouldn't it? I'm thinking a species with such a great degree of selflessness would be more likely to survive than the present humanity is, because a larger percentage of them would cooperate about existential risk reduction than is the case in present humanity. Yet, 10-30% is still not 0%, so even with 10% there would still be enough of selfishness to make sure they wouldn't end up refusing each other's gifts until they all starve to death or something.
Can group selection of genes for different psychological constitution in humans already explain why player 1 takes only 70% and not, say, at least 90%, on average, in the game you describe?
What do chimps do? Does a chimp player 1 take more or less than 70%?
First of all, from the standpoint of the good of the group, I see no reason why player1 shouldn't keep 100% of the money. After all, it is not as if player 2 were starving, and surely the good of player 1 is just as important to the good of the group as is the good of player 2. There is almost no reason for sharing from a standpoint of either Bentham-style utilitarianism or good-of-the-group.
However, there is a reason for sharing when you realize that player 2 is quite reasonably selfish, and has the power to make your life miserable. So, go ahead and give the jerk what he asks for. It is certainly to your own selfish advantage to do so. As long as he doesn't get too greedy.