humans really are good enough at this to be able to administer the test
laugh. Not even close.
much better than chance
this is my objection. Changing the prediction from “has never been wrong, in enough trials to overcome a fairly conservative prior about trickery vs predictive power” to ’better than chance” completely changes the problem.
If the guess is somewhat better than chance, it matters a lot how much better, and in which directions, and under what conditions the guesser is wrong. I think it’d pay to study how to manipulate the guesser so he expects one-boxing, and then two-box.
laugh. Not even close.
this is my objection. Changing the prediction from “has never been wrong, in enough trials to overcome a fairly conservative prior about trickery vs predictive power” to ’better than chance” completely changes the problem.
If the guess is somewhat better than chance, it matters a lot how much better, and in which directions, and under what conditions the guesser is wrong. I think it’d pay to study how to manipulate the guesser so he expects one-boxing, and then two-box.