Granted. And don’t agree to non-iterative Prisoner’s Dilemmas, either.
You’re not always in a situation where this matters. Your boss agreed to the contract. Your boss is a perfect rationalist, who completely ignores sunk costs, and has produced perfect probability distributions, which include the knowledge that the other party is adjusting the workload. You suspect the other party at this point has a spy in your organization adjusting their requests according to his team of analysts’ probability distributions to maximize the value they can extract from your company. How do you convince your boss it’s not worth it to continue the project, regardless of the probability distribution he’s currently produced?
At this point you’re just responding to every answer to “what would you do?” by inventing another scenario designed to make it fail, and asking the same question again. But these scenarios, like the excuses of the man who claims to have a dragon in his garage, are raised to your attention not by reality, but by the task of finding a way around the answers you have received. There is no end to this process, because for every plan, the outcome pump in your head can imagine a way it could fail.
The point was to explicate an issue with a fallacy.
I do find the anger about it mildly amusing, because it is coming entirely from people whose reaction to a hypothetical was to immediately dissect and reject it, then get annoyed when I continued to insist that the hypothetical held as-is.
That was the extent of my “trolling”, to insist that the hypothetical held as-is, and to mark it as a loss when they continued to reject it—the extent of their losing was merely the degree to which they continued to insist that the real issue was that the subject in the hypothetical was doing what the hypothetical explicitly said they were not doing—making inaccurate predictions.
Bad contract. Don’t agree that sort of contract next time.
Granted. And don’t agree to non-iterative Prisoner’s Dilemmas, either.
You’re not always in a situation where this matters. Your boss agreed to the contract. Your boss is a perfect rationalist, who completely ignores sunk costs, and has produced perfect probability distributions, which include the knowledge that the other party is adjusting the workload. You suspect the other party at this point has a spy in your organization adjusting their requests according to his team of analysts’ probability distributions to maximize the value they can extract from your company. How do you convince your boss it’s not worth it to continue the project, regardless of the probability distribution he’s currently produced?
At this point you’re just responding to every answer to “what would you do?” by inventing another scenario designed to make it fail, and asking the same question again. But these scenarios, like the excuses of the man who claims to have a dragon in his garage, are raised to your attention not by reality, but by the task of finding a way around the answers you have received. There is no end to this process, because for every plan, the outcome pump in your head can imagine a way it could fail.
It is futile to engage in this any further.
That’s the point.
That point being, it appears, “HEY GUYS I TRIED TO PISS YOU OFF AND YOU GOT PISSED OFF I WINZ0RZ HAHAHA L00K @ ALL MY DOWNVOTZ!1!!”.
The point was to explicate an issue with a fallacy.
I do find the anger about it mildly amusing, because it is coming entirely from people whose reaction to a hypothetical was to immediately dissect and reject it, then get annoyed when I continued to insist that the hypothetical held as-is.
That was the extent of my “trolling”, to insist that the hypothetical held as-is, and to mark it as a loss when they continued to reject it—the extent of their losing was merely the degree to which they continued to insist that the real issue was that the subject in the hypothetical was doing what the hypothetical explicitly said they were not doing—making inaccurate predictions.