Is this true for anyone: “If you offered me X right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me to precommit against taking X, I’d accept that offer and escape the other one”? For which values of X? Do you think most people have some value of X that would make them agree?
Not exactly right now, but I’ve called in sick for work when I would have gone in with sufficient precommitment.
edit: for clarity—this is a decision that I would prefer to have escaped the night before, and the day after. A number of things I lump into the “akrasia” topic fit this pattern.
A person who’s on a diet might agree if X is “I give you a piece of cake” in many instances.
I’m personally quite good at inhibiting myself from actions I don’t want to take but less good at getting myself to do uncomfortable things, so there’s no example that comes to mind immediately.
In general, I think that cases where system I wants to accept to offer but system II wants to reject the offer provide material for X. I would be surprised if you can’t find examples that hold for most people.
Do they have to be examples of willingly yielding?
E.g. if there was a malign Super intelligence in the box that I had to interact with, then I would probably yield to letting it out but if I could I would precommit to not letting it out I would.
Good example. “I would yield to a mind hack right now, but I would precommit to not yielding to a mind hack right now.” Are there any simpler examples, or specific mind hacks that would work on you?
I’m looking for examples of temptations that you would yield to, given the chance, and precommit against, given the chance. Basically things that make you torn and confused.
Note that the question tries to avoid the time inconsistency angle. You’d yield to one unit of X right now, given the chance, and you’d precommit against yielding to one unit of X right now, given the chance. Do any of your examples work like that?
I think some people would precommit to never telling lies, if they had the chance, but at the same time, they would lie in the typical Nazi at the door situation, given that they in fact cannot precommit. This has nothing to do with time inconsistency, because after you have lied in such a situation, you don’t find yourself wishing you had told the truth.
I’m not sure I’m parsing the question correctly. Attempting to set X = five dollars, I get “If you offered me five dollars right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me to precommit against taking five dollars, I’d accept that offer and escape the other one.” Precommitting against taking five dollars seems strange.
My best interpretation is “If you offered me X right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me Y to precommit against taking X, I’d accept that offer and later wouldn’t take X.” If that interpretation is close enough, then yes. If you offered me the opportunity to play Skyrim all day right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me a hundred dollars to precommit against playing Skyrim all day, I’d accept that offer and later wouldn’t take the opportunity to play Skyrim all day. That seems too straightforward though, so I don’t think I’m interpreting the question right.
Is this true for anyone: “If you offered me X right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me to precommit against taking X, I’d accept that offer and escape the other one”? For which values of X? Do you think most people have some value of X that would make them agree?
Not exactly right now, but I’ve called in sick for work when I would have gone in with sufficient precommitment.
edit: for clarity—this is a decision that I would prefer to have escaped the night before, and the day after. A number of things I lump into the “akrasia” topic fit this pattern.
A person who’s on a diet might agree if X is “I give you a piece of cake” in many instances.
I’m personally quite good at inhibiting myself from actions I don’t want to take but less good at getting myself to do uncomfortable things, so there’s no example that comes to mind immediately.
In general, I think that cases where system I wants to accept to offer but system II wants to reject the offer provide material for X. I would be surprised if you can’t find examples that hold for most people.
Do they have to be examples of willingly yielding?
E.g. if there was a malign Super intelligence in the box that I had to interact with, then I would probably yield to letting it out but if I could I would precommit to not letting it out I would.
Good example. “I would yield to a mind hack right now, but I would precommit to not yielding to a mind hack right now.” Are there any simpler examples, or specific mind hacks that would work on you?
Hmmm… would you precommit to not giving an armed robber your wallet? Would it be a wise precommittment?
If the robber knew that, then such a precommitment means you never have to face them, yes?
No. You assume the robber is a rational homo economicus. Hint: in most cases this is not true.
Besides, this.
Could you rewrite it more clearly? I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking… Besides, offer me to precommit against x why? With which incentive?
I’m looking for examples of temptations that you would yield to, given the chance, and precommit against, given the chance. Basically things that make you torn and confused.
Oh well, that’s easy:
snoozing
snacking
slacking at work
watching too much youtube
etc.
Note that the question tries to avoid the time inconsistency angle. You’d yield to one unit of X right now, given the chance, and you’d precommit against yielding to one unit of X right now, given the chance. Do any of your examples work like that?
Sometimes they do, yes. Not always though. There are times when I would like not to do something but some other subsystem is in control.
I think some people would precommit to never telling lies, if they had the chance, but at the same time, they would lie in the typical Nazi at the door situation, given that they in fact cannot precommit. This has nothing to do with time inconsistency, because after you have lied in such a situation, you don’t find yourself wishing you had told the truth.
I’m not sure I’m parsing the question correctly. Attempting to set X = five dollars, I get “If you offered me five dollars right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me to precommit against taking five dollars, I’d accept that offer and escape the other one.” Precommitting against taking five dollars seems strange.
My best interpretation is “If you offered me X right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me Y to precommit against taking X, I’d accept that offer and later wouldn’t take X.” If that interpretation is close enough, then yes. If you offered me the opportunity to play Skyrim all day right now, I’d accept the offer, but if you first offered me a hundred dollars to precommit against playing Skyrim all day, I’d accept that offer and later wouldn’t take the opportunity to play Skyrim all day. That seems too straightforward though, so I don’t think I’m interpreting the question right.