# On This Problem Rational People Do Worse

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol18JoeXlVI
Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/Ol18JoeXlVI
Generated: 2026-03-09T16:34:35.131+00:00

---
## Quick Overview

The core of Newcomb's paradox hinges on whether one prioritizes evidential decision theory (one-boxing to secure the predicted $1 million) or causal decision theory (two-boxing because the past decision cannot be influenced, guaranteeing an extra $1,000), revealing that rationality at the individual act level (two-box) can conflict with rationality at the systemic or life-rule level (one-box via pre-commitment).

**Key Points:**
- Newcomb's paradox divides people almost evenly, with 53.5% of a 2016 Guardian poll choosing one box and 46.5% choosing two boxes.
- One-boxers follow evidential decision theory, relying on the computer's proven accuracy ("the thousands of people that it accurately predicted before me is evidence enough") to expect $1 million.
- Two-boxers follow causal decision theory, arguing that since the boxes are already set, their current choice cannot influence the past, meaning they always secure an extra $1,000 over the one-box outcome.
- The optimal outcome, gaining $1,001,000, requires the seemingly impossible act of pre-committing to one-box but then choosing two-box at the last second, which the predictor would anticipate.
- The discussion analogizes the paradox to the Prisoner's Dilemma, suggesting that while the rational act is two-boxing, a rational society would be full of one-boxers (cooperators).
- The speaker suggests the only way to guarantee the $1 million is through pre-commitment, similar to the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) or the doomsday device in Dr. Strangelove.

**Context:** The video analyzes Newcomb's paradox, a philosophical problem involving a choice between two boxes: one containing $1,000 openly, and a mystery box predicted by a supercomputer to contain either $1 million (if the subject chooses only the mystery box) or nothing (if the subject chooses both boxes). The paradox centers on the conflict between two schools of decision theory—evidential and causal—which leads rational individuals to arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions about the optimal choice.

## Detailed Analysis

Newcomb's paradox presents a fundamental conflict in rational decision-making, dividing participants into one-boxers and two-boxers. One-boxers adhere to evidential decision theory, trusting the supercomputer's near-perfect predictive track record; they calculate that if the computer is highly accurate (C > 0.5005), the expected utility of taking only the mystery box ($1 million * C) outweighs taking both boxes. Conversely, two-boxers apply causal decision theory, asserting that the prediction is already made, so their current action cannot change what is in the box; thus, they are always better off by $1,000 by taking both boxes, regardless of the prediction, as they secure the $1,000 plus whatever is in the mystery box based on the past prediction. The discussion extends this conflict to broader concepts, noting that the ideal outcome ($1,001,000) requires a commitment to one-boxing that is then betrayed by two-boxing at the last moment, or by making a pre-commitment to one-box, mirroring strategies like Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) where committing to a seemingly worse action ensures stability. Ultimately, the problem forces consideration of whether rationality means making the best single choice (two-box) or adhering to life rules/commitments (one-box) that yield better long-term results.

### Paradox Setup

- One box has $1,000 guaranteed; the mystery box has $1 million if predicted you take only it, or $0 if predicted you take both boxes
- The predictor is extremely accurate based on thousands of prior predictions.

### Evidential Decision Theory (One-Boxing)

- Choice is based on correlation and prior evidence of accuracy
- Expected utility calculation shows one-boxing is superior if C > 50.05%
- Audience polling showed two-thirds of respondents were one-boxers.

### Causal Decision Theory (Two-Boxing)

- Choice focuses only on what current actions can cause; the past setup cannot change
- Two-boxing always adds $1,000 to the expected outcome regardless of P (the probability of one-boxing).

### Implications for Rationality and Free Will

- The paradox reveals that rational people disagree based on hidden assumptions about causality vs. evidence
- If a perfect predictor exists, it challenges free will, as one's choice is predetermined.

### The Role of Pre-Commitment

- The best monetary outcome ($1,001,000) requires a pre-commitment to one-box, then violating that commitment by two-boxing, or simply sticking to the commitment.

### Real-World Parallels

- The strategy mirrors the Prisoner's Dilemma where cooperation (one-boxing) is better for society, and the MAD strategy in the Cold War where commitment to retaliation deters attack.