= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Esar comments on A cure for akrasia - 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 (32)
Well, it would work for anything, if there's enough money (it doesn't matter if the money comes from you): the point is that an akratic action is an action where you evaluate a pair of options (say) such that the utility of A is higher than the utility of B, but nevertheless you do B.
Sorensen's solution is to refund your money if ever you choose B. But knowing that you'll be refunded, B now has a higher utility, so the action isn't akratic. It's like a paradox.
Assuming it makes sense to trust such an ad. I wouldn't. I'd be more likely to trust such an ad for preventing impulse buying via monetary depletion.
It took me a while to get it, but Esar is right. The point of the "solution" isn't that it's useful. You behave in the same way you did before, only now it's not akrasia anymore because you get a thousand dollars back so you're not acting against your own interests. It doesn't modify your behavior, it just redefines it.
I "got it". I am not missing the point. I'm just saying "If you send $1000 to somebody over the internet, you're not likely to get it back later." Therefore, that doing this would curb impulse buying by making you broke seems more likely to me.
You get that this is a philosophy article that appeared in a journal right? Its not an actual ad. The point is to present a paradox.
A. It was posted on the internet (I assume you pasted it in as opposed to typing it off of paper). The internet poses various interesting security risks such as the possibility for spammers / hackers / con artists to post things where they shouldn't be.
B. That it appeared in a journal is no reason to trust a person you don't know with $1,000. Consider this: the bank doesn't lend money based on whether you post in a journal, they lend money based on your credit score. Why trust anybody with $1,000 without at least knowing their credit score?
All I wanted to do was make a funny comment. Responses that nit pick a simple joke and simultaneously make me feel like the other person thinks I am clueless make me not want to participate here. I am not going to continue this conversation further.
Well, I apologize for any offense. Your response (i.e. suspecting a scam) was, even if in jest, both not uncommon and not what I expected. There is just no possibility this is any kind of scam, and it simply didn't occur to me that anyone would think otherwise.
This does make me feel better. Thanks.
I've had countless experiences where high-level professionals like doctors, the president of a company, leading businesses and even a college have done destructively incompetent things and/or outright intentionally attempted to take advantage of me and often for less money than $1,000. At this point, I would not allow the president of the United States to borrow $1,000 without a credit score and a contract.
Be careful. Seriously.