That sounds like a good idea in two ways:
It gives you practice at visualizing the alternatives (which is always good if it can be honed to greater availability/reflex by practice),
and by choosing those specific situations, you are automatically providing real-world examples in which to apply it; that way, it is a practical skill.
The intent seems different there, and that shapes the details. Pascal’s wager isn’t about how you act because of your beliefs—the belief is considered to be the action, and the outcomes are declared by fiat (or perhaps, fide) at the start of the problem, rather than modeled in your head as part of the purpose of the exercise.
I’ve seen it before used in the treatment of pascals wager: Believe in god x god exists = heavan, believe in god x god not exists = wasted life.… etc.
Can’t cite specific texts, but it was definately pre-LW for me, from people who had not heard of LW.
Ah yes, sorry. Payoff matrices are ancient; the Tarski Method is visualizing one in response to a temptation to rationalize. Edited.
That sounds like a good idea in two ways: It gives you practice at visualizing the alternatives (which is always good if it can be honed to greater availability/reflex by practice), and by choosing those specific situations, you are automatically providing real-world examples in which to apply it; that way, it is a practical skill.
The intent seems different there, and that shapes the details. Pascal’s wager isn’t about how you act because of your beliefs—the belief is considered to be the action, and the outcomes are declared by fiat (or perhaps, fide) at the start of the problem, rather than modeled in your head as part of the purpose of the exercise.