That still sounds like just one dimension to me. For two dimensions, you would need "mild very positive emotions" (contentment?) and "intense slightly negative emotions" (overpowering nostalgia?).
One way to get around this is to classify emotions into active and passive (or high- and low- arousal), where, for example, anger would be active/negative, and grief would be passive/negative. Like the emotion diagram I've seen around the internet lately:
That being said, it's still interesting how vague emotional classifications can be.
By the time Gandhi had taken the deal 99 times, though, don't you think he might be less inclined to behave so altruistically? 1%-Gandhi would additionally know that he was on his last chance to become a millionaire, which might help sway him further.
This reminds me eerily of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. The money is already there, and making fun of me for two-boxing ain't gonna change anything.
A question - how could Omega be a perfect predictor, if I in fact have a third option - namely leaving without taking either box? This possibility would, in any real-life situation, lead me to two-box. I know this and accept it.
Then there's always the economic argument: If $1000 is a sum of money that matters a great deal to me, I'm two-boxing. Otherwise, I'd prefer to one-box.
I got an averagish 17, which is well down from my score a couple of years ago. At the same time, however, my thinking has become more utilitarian rather than less.
Call it the difference between desire to socialize and desire to eliminate social influence.