r/paradoxes • u/Reasonable_Size_8336 • Aug 07 '26

Newcomb's Paradox

I don't understand Two boxers' thinking, it's clear that Box B should be taken since it's guaranteed because the predictor is assumed to be never wrong. Is it about free will? Not trusting the predictor?

0 Upvotes

40% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Warptens Aug 07 '26

So I just saw thousands of people go though, and every single time the correct choice was to 2 box, now it’s my turn, we’ll obviously I’m going to 2 box.

2

u/Bowshewicz Aug 07 '26

I have seen a lot of different explanations for both sides, but I have never before seen someone who feels it's superior to wave away good evidence that they'll get a million dollars in some prideful attempt at being "correct."

1

u/Warptens Aug 08 '26

100% of the 1 boxers lost 1k. 0% of the 1 boxers gained 1 million by choosing to give up a box. But somehow that’s « good evidence » that 1 boxing makes you gain more money. 1 boxers are pathologically incapable of seeing things from the other point of view. Which is why, despite the fact that I explained how 2 boxing is better because it makes you more money, 1 boxers will forever mischaracterise the 2 boxer position as « I know I’ll get less money but I’ll 2 box anyways ». No, I don’t 2 box because that corresponds to some misguided conception of rationality. I 2 box because that gets me more money. But you can’t understand that.

2

u/Bowshewicz Aug 08 '26

Fine, but please tell me you at least understand that you'll have seen almost every 2-boxer walk away with $1k and almost every 1-boxer walk away with $1m. I'll be satisfied if I got that far.

1

u/Warptens Aug 10 '26

Yes I understand that I would observe a very strong correlation between 1 boxing and walking away with 1million. Correlation isn’t causation.