The payoffs listed are monetary, and box A only has $1000. Non-monetary consequences can be highly significant in comparison. There is value in sticking one’s neck out to prove a point.
The payoffs listed are monetary, and box A only has $1000.
This isn’t even specified. Carl mentioned that both boxes were to be altered but didn’t bother specifying the specifics since it is the ratio that is important for the purpose of the problem.
Non-monetary consequences can be highly significant in comparison.
There is value in sticking one’s neck out to prove a point.
It is troubling if “One box! Cooperate!” is such an applause light that people choose it to ‘prove a point’ even when the reason for it to be a good idea is removed. “One Box!” is the right answer in Newcomb’s Problem and the wrong answer in Normative Uncertainty Necomb’s Problem (1:1). If there is still value to ‘proving that point’ then something is broken.
Applause lights are one thing, fame (paradoxically, I guess) is another. If one were to imagine the scenario in an otherwise-realistic world, such a rash decision would gain a lot of news coverage. Which can be turned to useful ends, by most people’s lights.
As for fighting the hypothetical, yeah guilty. But it’s useful to remind ourselves that (A) money isn’t utility and, more importantly, (B) while money clearly is ratio scalable, it’s not uncontroversial that utility even fits an interval scale. I’m doubtful about (B), so sticking with money allows me to play along with the ratio assumption—but invites other complications.
Edited to add: in the comments Carl specified to keep box A constant at $1000.
Applause lights are one thing, fame (paradoxically, I guess) is another. If one were to imagine the scenario in an otherwise-realistic world, such a rash decision would gain a lot of news coverage.
Your model of how to gain fame does not seem to be similar to mine.
The payoffs listed are monetary, and box A only has $1000. Non-monetary consequences can be highly significant in comparison. There is value in sticking one’s neck out to prove a point.
This isn’t even specified. Carl mentioned that both boxes were to be altered but didn’t bother specifying the specifics since it is the ratio that is important for the purpose of the problem.
They also fall under fighting the hypothetical.
It is troubling if “One box! Cooperate!” is such an applause light that people choose it to ‘prove a point’ even when the reason for it to be a good idea is removed. “One Box!” is the right answer in Newcomb’s Problem and the wrong answer in Normative Uncertainty Necomb’s Problem (1:1). If there is still value to ‘proving that point’ then something is broken.
Applause lights are one thing, fame (paradoxically, I guess) is another. If one were to imagine the scenario in an otherwise-realistic world, such a rash decision would gain a lot of news coverage. Which can be turned to useful ends, by most people’s lights.
As for fighting the hypothetical, yeah guilty. But it’s useful to remind ourselves that (A) money isn’t utility and, more importantly, (B) while money clearly is ratio scalable, it’s not uncontroversial that utility even fits an interval scale. I’m doubtful about (B), so sticking with money allows me to play along with the ratio assumption—but invites other complications.
Edited to add: in the comments Carl specified to keep box A constant at $1000.
Your model of how to gain fame does not seem to be similar to mine.