= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Given the stakes, it seems to me the most rational thing to do here is to try to convince the other person that you should both cooperate, and then defect.
The difference between this dilemma and Newcomb is that Newcomb's Omega predicts perfectly which box you'll take, whereas the Creationist cannot predict whether you'll defect or not.
The only way you can lose is if you screw up so badly at trying to convincing him to cooperate (i.e. you're a terrible liar or bad at communicating in general and confuse him), that instead he's convinced he should defect now. So the biggest factor when deciding whether to cooperate or defect should be your ability to convince.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm not sure that's something worth studying here - it's kinda sneaky and unethical.
I would say it is certainly something worth studying, the understanding of how it works would be invaluable. We can decide if we want to use it to further our goals or not once we understand it (hopefully not before, using something you don't understand is generally a bad thing imho). If we decide not to use it, the knowledge would help us educate others and perhaps prevent the 'dark ones' from using it.
Perhaps something a la James Randi, create an ad whose first half uses some of the techniques and whose second half explains the mechanisms used to control inattentive viewers with a link to somewhere with more information on understanding how its done and why people should care.