Because it generally does. Adding simulated realities motivated by coin tosses with chemically induced repetitive decision making gives you the right answer nearly always
You have identified a shortcut that seems to rely on a certain assumption. It sounds like you have identified a way to violate that assumption and will hopefully not make that mistake again. There’s no paradox. Just lazy math.
and any other method gives you the wrong answer (give me your method and I’ll show you).
Method? I didn’t particularly have a cached algorithm to fall back on. So my method was “Read problem. Calculate outcomes for cooperate and defect in each situation. Multiply by appropriate weights. Try not to do anything stupid and definitely don’t consider tails worth more than heads based on a gimmick.”
If you have an example where most calculations people make would give the wrong answer then I’d be happy to tackle it.
You have identified a shortcut that seems to rely on a certain assumption. It sounds like you have identified a way to violate that assumption and will hopefully not make that mistake again. There’s no paradox. Just lazy math.
Method? I didn’t particularly have a cached algorithm to fall back on. So my method was “Read problem. Calculate outcomes for cooperate and defect in each situation. Multiply by appropriate weights. Try not to do anything stupid and definitely don’t consider tails worth more than heads based on a gimmick.”
If you have an example where most calculations people make would give the wrong answer then I’d be happy to tackle it.