Downvoted for use of the term 'race realism' (that's verbal bullying).

Because if TDT endorsed the action, then other people would be able to deduce that TDT endorsed the action, and that (whether or not it had happened in any particular case) their lives would be in danger in any hospital run by a timeless decision theorist, and then we'd be in much the same boat. Therefore TDT calculates that the correct thing for TDT to output in order to maximize utility is "Don't kill the traveler," and thus the doctor doesn't kill the traveler.

TDT could deduce that people would deduce that TDT would not endorse the action, and therefore TDT is safe to endorse the action. It seems like the gist of this is: (a) i've decided that killing the traveler is wrong (based on something other than TDT) and (b) TDT should do the right thing.

I upvoted and like this post. Some of it just strikes me as magical

The selish gene theory was a good one, but wrong (see epigenetics).

I understand 'the selfish gene theory' to be the idea that we should expect to see genes whose 'effects' are such as to cause their own replication to be maximized, as opposed to promoting the survival/reproduction of the individual, group or species, whenever these goals differ.

This is almost a tautology, modulo the tricky business of defining the 'effects' of a particular gene.

I don't see how the existence of epigenetic inheritance has anything to do with it, especially as the selfish gene theory doesn't depend on genes being made of DNA, only that whatever they are, genes can preserve information indefinitely.

Overconfident? Really?

• "...looks like a good candidate for an evolved intuition"
• "Many researchers think..."
• "Many researchers suggest..."
• "Our brains may have evolved..."
• "but we may not have evolved..."
• "...it seems unlikely that..."

And of course I haven't defended selfish gene theory.

I think your conclusion is largely correct, but I see a lot of overconfidence here, particularly in the evolutionary psych section. The selish gene theory was a good one, but wrong (see epigenetics).

I can't recall the name of it, but I think there was documentary about people jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. The filmmakers interviewed a bunch of people who had survived their attempts, and most or all of them regretted jumping as soon as they were airborne. I'm in favor of a right to suicide (not to be confused with thinking it is a good idea in the vast majority of cases) but I think anyone who is really set on going through with it should be encouraged to do so by means of a slow-acting poison that has an antidote, or some analogous method, just in case they discover an unexpected revealed preference for living after beginning to kill themselves.

The first one is flawed, IMO, but not for the reason you gave (and I wouldn't call it a 'trick'). The study design is flawed. They should not ask everyone "which is more probable?" People might just assume that the first choice, "Linda is a bank teller" really means "Linda is a bank teller and not active in the feminist movement" (otherwise the second answer would be a subset of the first, which would be highly unusual for a multiple choice survey).

The Soviet Union study has a better design, where people are randomized and only see one option and are asked how probable it is.

You have to realize that a great number of things are discussed in these proceedings that the mind just can't deal with, people are simply too tired and distracted, and by way of compensation they resort to superstition.

-- Kafka, The Trial

Justice is an artefact of custom. Where customs are unsettled its dictates soon become dated. Ideas of justice are as timeless as fashions in hats.

-John Gray, Straw Dogs

Who has not experienced the chilling memory of the better things? How it creeps over the spirit of one's current dreams! Like the specter at the banquet it stands, its substanceless eyes viewing with a sad philosophy the make-shift feast.

-Theodore Dreiser, The Titan