That sounds like a failure of the thought experiment to me.

You didn't give details on how or how not to set up the thought experiment. I took it to mean 'your spontaneous valuation when imagining the situation' followed by n objective'multiplication'. Now my reaction wasn't that of aversion, but I tried to think of possible reactions and what would follow from that.

The goal is to generate a thought experiment that helps you identify the "intrinsic" value of something small. But the 'intrinsic' value appears to heavily depend on the setup of the thought experiment. And it humans value small things nonlinearly more than large/many things one can hack the valuation by constraining the thought experiment to only small things.

Nothing wrong with mind hacks per se. I have read your productivity post. But I don't think they don't help in establishing 'intrinsic' value. For personal self-modification (motivation) it seems to work nice.