I had a look at the existing literature. It seems as though the idea of a “rational agent” who takes one box goes quite a way back:
“Rationality, Dispositions, and the Newcomb Paradox” (Philosophical Studies, volume 88, number 1, October 1997)
Abstract: “In this article I point out two important ambiguities in the paradox. [...] I draw an analogy to Parfit’s hitchhiker example which explains why some people are tempted to claim that taking only one box is rational. I go on to claim that although the ideal strategy is to adopt a necessitating disposition to take only one box, it is never rational to choose only one box. [...] I conclude that the rational action for a player in the Newcomb Paradox is taking both boxes, but that rational agents will usually take only one box because they have rationally adopted the disposition to do so.”
I had a look at the existing literature. It seems as though the idea of a “rational agent” who takes one box goes quite a way back:
“Rationality, Dispositions, and the Newcomb Paradox” (Philosophical Studies, volume 88, number 1, October 1997)
Abstract: “In this article I point out two important ambiguities in the paradox. [...] I draw an analogy to Parfit’s hitchhiker example which explains why some people are tempted to claim that taking only one box is rational. I go on to claim that although the ideal strategy is to adopt a necessitating disposition to take only one box, it is never rational to choose only one box. [...] I conclude that the rational action for a player in the Newcomb Paradox is taking both boxes, but that rational agents will usually take only one box because they have rationally adopted the disposition to do so.”
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/publish.htm