= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
magfrump comments on How should Eliezer and Nick's extra $20 be split - 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 (66)
I'm surprised nobody has yet written that the appropriate way for them to split it in this case is $10 each, because the transaction cost of working out something else in more detail and then making the appropriate change is greater than the difference between $10 and whatever the appropriate answer is.
Yes, but here the goal is to solve the general case.
I suspect that the problem of trusting system 1 is more general than the problem of perfectly analyzing system 2 (as a citation: the fact that humans use system 1 reasoning almost all the time).
I agree that the system 2 answer to this question is also interesting, and my first answer was the bayesian answer which I believe was 3rd on the OP.
I stand by the fact that the real world answer to THIS problem is decided by contingent environmental circumstances, and that the real answer to any similar but scaled-up real world problem will also probably be decided by contingent environmental circumstances. I don't resent people answering in a technical way I was more just surprised that no one else had written what I wrote.