Although the consensus seems to be that this post by PhilGoetz is an unhelpful, uninformed one, I believe I got something out of it:
1) I had never before even realized the similarity between Newcomb’s problem and revenge. Sorry. bows head
2) It suggests to me a better way to phrase the problem:
a) Replace Omega with “someone who’s really good at reading people” and give example of how she (makes more sense as a she) caught people in lies based on subtle facial expressions, etc.
b) Restate the question as “Are you the sort of person who would one-box?” Or “Do/should you make it a habit of one-boxing in cases like this?” rather than “Would you one-box?” This subtle difference is important.
If the above is all obvious, it’s because I’ve done a poor job following the Newcomb threads, as many here seem to think Phil did, since they didn’t interest me.
Although the consensus seems to be that this post by PhilGoetz is an unhelpful, uninformed one, I believe I got something out of it:
1) I had never before even realized the similarity between Newcomb’s problem and revenge. Sorry. bows head
2) It suggests to me a better way to phrase the problem:
a) Replace Omega with “someone who’s really good at reading people” and give example of how she (makes more sense as a she) caught people in lies based on subtle facial expressions, etc.
b) Restate the question as “Are you the sort of person who would one-box?” Or “Do/should you make it a habit of one-boxing in cases like this?” rather than “Would you one-box?” This subtle difference is important.
If the above is all obvious, it’s because I’ve done a poor job following the Newcomb threads, as many here seem to think Phil did, since they didn’t interest me.