This post assumes knowledge of Newcomb's problem. It is provided here for reference and can be skipped if you already have the background knowledge.
Background on Newcomb's Problem
Newcomb's problem is a game where you are faced with two choices: pick only an opaque box (that has either zero dollars or one million dollars), or additionally pick a transparent box that visibly contains a thousand dollars.
At first glance, it is obvious that you should always pick both boxes in order to get the extra thousand dollars.
The catch is that before you even knew you were about to play this game, someone made a prediction about what decision you were about to make, and the
One thing that I disagree with in your analysis is that one boxers care about dispositions whereas two boxers care about decisions. I think it's actually the opposite.
I myself am a fairly confident one boxer who feels the force of two boxing reasoning. I work at a trading firm and found that my firm seems to attract people who think like two boxers. I found a highly intelligent coworker (who seems to be even more intelligent than I am) who is a staunch two-boxer. He seems to understand every point I have brought up, and he brings up fair points.
During our debate, it became apparent that he assumed that, since you can't... (read more)
One of the things you mention is that the signal should not be possible to fake by a bad actor (i.e.: someone who is not curious but wants to act curious to create plausible deniability).
Most responses here seem to be attacking this question from the perspective of modeling curiosity. Instead, let's focus on use cases of feigning curiosity, and see if we can reason about what a bad actor may be incapable of doing.
Think about the disposition of someone whose intent is to embarrass rather than to learn. Such a person wants to assert dominance. He wants to win and show that he is superior. To gain status at your expense. He... (read more)
Love this! Great examples to illustrate that your identity as a one boxer is rooted in your behavior instead of your mind. And pretty cool to think this mirrors theological debates that have gone on for so long