pull down to refresh
I was a one-boxer upon hearing the problem. I can appreciate the arguments for two-boxing, but if given the chance, I'd still one-box it.
For example, if the numbers changed from $1k / $1m to $500k, $510k, I suspect a lot more would take both boxes, despite the expected-utility calculations working the same.
Yeah, I agree that most people just answer based on gut feeling. A follow-up question in their survey should have been: can you define EU in a Bayesian context?
I think at $1k and $1M I'd also one-box it, but this would be motivated by vague superstitious notions / ambiguity aversion and also trying to minimize the feeling of regret. (If I 1-box, at most I lose out on $1,000 but if I 2-box I could feel like I missed out on $1M)
a harder decision is 10k vs 100k
Real world $1k vs. $1M probably wouldn't be as 50/50 as the experimental results suggest. I bet most of the people choosing two-boxing are thinking of it like a logic puzzle rather than a real life choice.
I wish I had thought this through for myself before plowing ahead in the video.
In this situation, I would be thinking about whether I'm being given an honest and accurate description of the situation. If I could verify that everyone had gotten the million dollars and I'm not going to be the last participant, then I'm taking the one box.
That's only the strategically worse move if there's no uncertainty about whether the situation is what they claim it is.
Uncertainty over whether the situation is described accurately could also be uncertainty over whether the world works the way you think it does. So I think it's rational under many circumstances to take the one-box. But I don't think the video should have presented it as a valid EU-maixmization based chain of thought using the given probabilities. It's much more likely driven by unstated notions of risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, and regret minimization.
Of course I agree with that.
I will say, the way I expect the world to work is that any bizarre highly contrived situation like this is probably a trick of some sort.
do you field goal or touchdown?
unstated notions of risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, and regret minimization
Let me Wikipedia those words tonight to see if I can give further intelligent input~~
Computerphile did a video on this too.
I dunno man, I don't really agree when they say both approaches are valid. The one box logic is not valid given the way the problem is set up, assuming you believe that causality runs in one direction.
I suspect that this may have a lot more to do with risk tolerances and ex-post regret than peoples' views on rationality and free will.
For example, if the numbers changed from $1k / $1m to $500k, $510k, I suspect a lot more would take both boxes, despite the expected-utility calculations working the same.
Also tagging @Undisciplined and @denlillaapan, my two fellow SN economists, because this seems to be an area where the mathy nerds are touching up on behavioral economic theory and IMO they're taking the philosophy a bit further than it needs to go, when perfectly reasonable economic thinking can explain the data (i think).
Wait, so are you now a one-boxer or a two-boxer?