Point 1: The Newcomb Problem tells you nothing about actual social interactions between actual humans. If you’re interested in social structures, techniques, etc., the Newcomb Problem is the wrong place to start.
Point 2: Trust in this context can be defined more or less as “accepting without verifying”. There is no trust involved in the Newcomb problem.
If you 2-box, shouldn’t Point 1 be “Newcomb’s problem doesn’t tell you anything useful about anything” rather than “Newcomb’s probably doesn’t tell you anything useful about trust?”
Newcomb’s is a hypothetical scenario (highly unlikely to exist in reality). As such, I think it’s usefulness is more or less on par with other hypothetical scenarios unlikely to happen.
Let me be more clear.
Point 1: The Newcomb Problem tells you nothing about actual social interactions between actual humans. If you’re interested in social structures, techniques, etc., the Newcomb Problem is the wrong place to start.
Point 2: Trust in this context can be defined more or less as “accepting without verifying”. There is no trust involved in the Newcomb problem.
Oh, and in case you’re curious, I two-box.
If you 2-box, shouldn’t Point 1 be “Newcomb’s problem doesn’t tell you anything useful about anything” rather than “Newcomb’s probably doesn’t tell you anything useful about trust?”
Newcomb’s is a hypothetical scenario (highly unlikely to exist in reality). As such, I think it’s usefulness is more or less on par with other hypothetical scenarios unlikely to happen.