= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CellBioGuy comments on Why do theists, undergrads, and Less Wrongers favor one-boxing on Newcomb? - 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 (299)
More formal logic and philosophy training -> a greater chance to over-think it and think explicitly about decision theory (and possibly even have loyalties to particular rigid theories) rather than just doing what gets you more money? A case of thinking too deeply about the matter just leading a large fraction of people into confusion?
Confusion doesn't explain the firm directionality of the trend.
This doesn't explain which one gets dominance, although it allows some amplification of noise or bias caused by other factors.
I think the "think explicitly about decision theory" part was supposed to indicate the direction, since CDT as been the leader.
At the time you are asked to make the decision, taking both boxes gets you more money than taking one box does.
People who take one box take $1,000,000 instead of $1,001,000; people who take two boxes take $1000 instead of $0.
Um, huh?
I don't enjoy word games, but what does "instead of" mean here?
The one-boxers had a choice between $1m and $1m+1k; the two boxers had a choice between $0 and $1k. The "instead of" refers to their reward if they had done the opposite of what it had already been predicted that they do.
The problem statement is assuming a perfect predictor, though, so that 'instead of' clause is mostly noise.
Yeah, it designates the counterfactual; what they didn't take.
It's not referring to a possible state of reality.
In which case there aren't possible states of reality; only exemplified and counterfactual states.