“Well, it need hardly be said that someone here is failing at rationality.”
Right, using the agreement theorem, someone is failing at rationality. Either it is him or it is me. I must conclude that it is him. (If you would like an argument for this, I can provide it, but will skip for now as I suspect it is uncontroversial.)
Given that I have already concluded that my colleague is irrational, I cannot trust him to make a rational decision regarding the choice of drugs. Thus I just need to make the choice that will save at least 5,000 lives. (Note: I cannot predict which decision he will make, since irrational reasoning can lead to either choice. But if he chooses the malaria drugs, then all for the better.)
After we both choose the 5000 of each drug,
I don’t think you can claim to have acted rationally.
What is the “you” here? If the “you” is plural and refers to both me and my colleague, it is expected that we did not act rationally since we already knew we weren’t both rational.
However, I acted rationally, given the information that my colleague would not.
By the way, what is the interpretation “around these parts” of Aumann’s disagreement theorem taken together with the fact that apparently rational people have different solutions to these kinds of dilemma’s? Is the idea that eventually, we’ll reach a consensus?
Given that I have already concluded that my colleague is irrational, I cannot trust him to make a rational decision regarding the choice of drugs. Thus I just need to make the choice that will save at least 5,000 lives. (Note: I cannot predict which decision he will make, since irrational reasoning can lead to either choice. But if he chooses the malaria drugs, then all for the better.)
Is it a common belief that someone who has acted irrationally with regards to X is unable to act rationally with regards to Y? I am not challenging, just pinging for more information because this came as a surprise.
Right, using the agreement theorem, someone is failing at rationality. Either it is him or it is me. I must conclude that it is him. (If you would like an argument for this, I can provide it, but will skip for now as I suspect it is uncontroversial.)
Given that I have already concluded that my colleague is irrational, I cannot trust him to make a rational decision regarding the choice of drugs. Thus I just need to make the choice that will save at least 5,000 lives. (Note: I cannot predict which decision he will make, since irrational reasoning can lead to either choice. But if he chooses the malaria drugs, then all for the better.)
After we both choose the 5000 of each drug,
What is the “you” here? If the “you” is plural and refers to both me and my colleague, it is expected that we did not act rationally since we already knew we weren’t both rational.
However, I acted rationally, given the information that my colleague would not.
By the way, what is the interpretation “around these parts” of Aumann’s disagreement theorem taken together with the fact that apparently rational people have different solutions to these kinds of dilemma’s? Is the idea that eventually, we’ll reach a consensus?
Is it a common belief that someone who has acted irrationally with regards to X is unable to act rationally with regards to Y? I am not challenging, just pinging for more information because this came as a surprise.