What I'm getting at is that the decision society makes for how to distribute utility across different people, is very similar to the decision you make for how to distribute utility across your possible future selves.

Why do we think it's reasonable to say that we should maximize average utility across all our possible future selves, when no one I know would say that we should maximize average utility across all living people?

While you appear to be right about phil's incorrect interpretation, I don't think he meant any malice by it...however, you appear to me to have meant malice in return. So, I think your comment borders on unnecessary disrespect and if it were me who had made the comment, I would edit it to make the same point while sounding less hateful. If people disagree with me, please down vote this comment. (Though admittedly, if you edit your comment now, we won't get good data, so you probably should leave it as is.)

I admit that I'm not factoring in your entire history with phil much so you may have further justification of which I'm unaware, but my view I would expect to be shared even more by casual readers who don't know either of you well. Maybe in that case, a comment like yours is fine, but only if delivered privately.

Phil may be more likely to misinterpret you than the most prolific contributors, but he is probably less likely to misinterpret you than most most readers of LW. I understand that this may be beside the point to you. I empathize, and wish I could think of a solution.

You may not have noticed that I was accusing you of being insightful.

I'm trying to be sensitive to your issues about this. So how would you have suggested that I phrase my comment? I said, "This is what Eliezer seems to be saying", and asked if that was what you were saying. I don't know what you want. You seem to be saying (and I have to say things like this, because in order to have a conversation with someone you have to try to figure out what they mean) "Shut up, Phil."

In this case, when I said you seemed to be saying that rational decision-making about playing the lottery does not mean maximizing expected utility, I was just being polite. You said it. I quote:

Those who buy tickets will not win the lottery. If you think the chance is worth talking about, you've fallen prey to the fallacy yourself.

This says that the chance of winning the lottery is so low that you don't need to do an expected utility calculation. I will not back down and pretend that I might be misinterpreting you in this instance. Maybe you meant to say something different, but this is what you said.

You're tired of me trying to interpret what you say? Well, I'm tired of you trying to disclaim or ignore the logical consequences of what you say.