You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Unknowns comments on Two-boxing, smoking and chewing gum in Medical Newcomb problems - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: Caspar42 29 June 2015 10:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (93)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Unknowns 29 June 2015 03:24:06PM 1 point [-]

Why? They one-box because they have the gene. So no reversal. Just as in the original Newcomb problem they choose to one-box because they were the sort of person who would do that.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 30 June 2015 01:57:05PM -1 points [-]

From the original post:

A study shows that most people who two-box in Newcomblike problems as the following have a certain gene (and one-boxers don't have the gene).

If you one-box, you may or may not have the gene, but whether or not you have the gene is entirely irrelevant to what decision you should make. If, confronted with this problem, you say "I'll one-box", you're attempting to reverse causal flow - to determine your genetic makeup via the decisions you make, as opposed to the decision you make being determined by your genetic makeup. There is zero advantage conferred to declaring yourself a one-boxer in this arrangement.