Do you have in mind something like 0.9 1000⁄9 + 0.1 100⁄1 = 110? This doesn’t look right
This can be justified by change of rules: deciders get their part of total sum (to donate it of course). Then expected personal gain before:
for "yea": 0.5*(0.9*1000/9+0.1*0)+0.5*(0.9*0+0.1*100/1)=55
for "nay": 0.5*(0.9*700/9+0.1*0)+0.5*(0.9*0+0.1*700/1)=70
Expected personal gain for decider:
for "yea": 0.9*1000/9+0.1*100/1=110
for "nay": 0.9*700/9+0.1*700/1=140
Edit: corrected error in value of first expected benefit.
Edit: Hm, it is possible to reformulate Newcomb’s problem in similar fashion. One of subjects (A) is asked whether ze chooses one box or two boxes, another subject (B) is presented with two boxes with content per A’s choice. If they make identical decision, then they have what they choose, otherwise they get nothing.
And here’s a reformulation of Counterfactual Mugging in the same vein. Find two subjects who don’t care about each other’s welfare at all. Flip a coin to choose one of them who will be asked to give up $100. If ze agrees, the other one receives $10000.
This is very similar to a rephrasing of the Prisoner’s Dilemma known as the Chocolate Dilemma. Jimmy has the option of taking one piece of chocolate for himself, or taking three pieces and giving them to Jenny. Jenny faces the same choice: take one piece for herself or three pieces for Jimmy. This formulation makes it very clear that two myopically-rational people will do worse than two irrational people, and that mutual precommitment at the start is a good idea.
This stuff is still unclear to me, but there may be a post in here once we work it out. Would you like to cooperate on a joint one, or something?
Edit: Hm, it is possible to reformulate Newcomb’s problem in similar fashion. One of subjects (A) is asked whether ze chooses one box or two boxes, another subject (B) is presented with two boxes with content per A’s choice. If they make identical decision, then they have what they choose, otherwise they get nothing.
This can be justified by change of rules: deciders get their part of total sum (to donate it of course). Then expected personal gain before:
Expected personal gain for decider:
Edit: corrected error in value of first expected benefit.
Edit: Hm, it is possible to reformulate Newcomb’s problem in similar fashion. One of subjects (A) is asked whether ze chooses one box or two boxes, another subject (B) is presented with two boxes with content per A’s choice. If they make identical decision, then they have what they choose, otherwise they get nothing.
And here’s a reformulation of Counterfactual Mugging in the same vein. Find two subjects who don’t care about each other’s welfare at all. Flip a coin to choose one of them who will be asked to give up $100. If ze agrees, the other one receives $10000.
This is very similar to a rephrasing of the Prisoner’s Dilemma known as the Chocolate Dilemma. Jimmy has the option of taking one piece of chocolate for himself, or taking three pieces and giving them to Jenny. Jenny faces the same choice: take one piece for herself or three pieces for Jimmy. This formulation makes it very clear that two myopically-rational people will do worse than two irrational people, and that mutual precommitment at the start is a good idea.
This stuff is still unclear to me, but there may be a post in here once we work it out. Would you like to cooperate on a joint one, or something?
I’m still unsure if it is something more than intuition pump. Anyway, I’ll share any interesting thoughts.
This is awesome! Especially the edit. Thanks.
It’s pure coordination game.