Episode 307: What's in the BOX?

[00:00:00] Very Bad Wizards is a podcast with a philosopher, my dad, and psychologist Dave Pizarro, having an informal discussion about issues in science and ethics. Please note that the discussion contains bad words that I'm not allowed to say, and knowing my dad, some very inappropriate jokes. Ah, what's in the BOX? What's in the fucking BOX?

[00:01:09] Welcome to Very Bad Wizards. I'm Tamler Sommers from the University of Houston. Dave, things are pretty grim right now in the US, to put it mildly. Can you give us all some good reasons not to feel hopeless? Well, if you could see my smile, all of that stress would melt away. I feel great. Full of optimism for the future. Yeah, Patreon members will get to see. I'll put a picture of my smile to avoid depression.

[00:01:39] Yeah, I'll be, I'll pull a Steve Pinker here. You know that for thousands of years we were much worse off. That's really helpful. Look at the statistics from 18... Yeah, we would have died a, like a painful early death if we were alive. Yeah, but they didn't have duo fucking whatever authorization. Like they didn't have to do that. It's a two factor. It's true. We evolutionarily just aren't prepared for this.

[00:02:07] We're meant to go out and kill each other with axes, not check our phones for an authorization code. Yeah, it's like maybe you would get scurvy and whatever, polio, and you would die from consumption like at 48. But yeah, you didn't have to do any of that shit. Sorry. I feel like I failed. Well, you succeeded for me. Your smile cheered me up. I feel better. So anyway, today we're going to talk about something in the main segment that's extremely nonpolitical.

[00:02:37] Like, I don't know if you can get much more nonpolitical than this. Two problems, puzzles, thought experiments, one of which is the Monty Hall problem. Why people get that wrong, including really, really, really smart people. And then we're going to talk about something that's in a different category than that. It's Newcomb's problem or sometimes called Newcomb's paradox. I don't know what the genre of that is actually.

[00:03:05] It feels like it's in maybe the same category as something like Russell's paradox, but it's not really, I guess. Like, it's not so overtly self-contradictory. I don't see how it's a paradox. I've seen some people call it that, but I don't see how it's a paradox. There's no contradiction. There's no contradiction. Yeah. I'm interested to hear what you think about that. And it's also possible we've talked about it before, we should say at the outset.

[00:03:28] Yeah. I think we at least mentioned it when we did our thought experiment episode back in like the fucking 60s or whenever we started this podcast. When the who was... My generation. First though, I mean, basically, we're a TV recap podcast at this point. Like we sometimes do philosophy and psychology every so often.

[00:03:53] So we thought, so two things, we're going to give our general thoughts on the season and White Lotus in general. And then we're going to rank the various arcs and storylines from season three as a way of talking about what we liked and what we didn't like. Yeah. Now I know that a lot of people watch this. Like, I don't know what the numbers are. It seems like everybody I know watched it, but it's a good time to remind people if you want to skip, like we always put chapter markers, go ahead and skip if you don't want to be spoiled.

[00:04:20] But I think it was just sort of in the air. Like people were just talking about it. Everyone was watching it that I knew too. And even students were watching it. I was surprised. I asked my students, like, does your generation watch White Lotus? And like three quarters of them raised their hands. Oh, nice. So yeah, two thirds. It's nice to get like these communal experiences once in a while. Yeah. You just got to hold on to that. I feel like I used to not have my finger on the pulse, but I used to have more references.

[00:04:48] And yeah, especially since Gen Z doesn't apparently doesn't do anything. That's what the word is. Like TikTok. All right. Let's talk about White Lotus season three and White Lotus in general, but we're going to focus mostly on season three. What'd you think? Yeah. So I enjoyed it. It's a weird mix for me of a soap opera of sorts and prestige TV at the same time. When season three started, I was like, oh man, I really missed this.

[00:05:16] Especially, you know, we were doing severance and severance requires a lot of thinking and we were doing a podcast on it. And with White Lotus, I feel like I could just enjoy these episodes, enjoy seeing like, I think it's shot great. I think the performances are great and, you know, get a little bit of a feeling of superiority at these many morally corrupt people. Yeah. It's fun. Who have like a chance at salvation or grace and usually turn it down and go right back to their worlds.

[00:05:43] That sounded more positive about season three than I thought. Well, yeah, I should say. Then I enjoyed season three and then the finale ruined a lot of it for me. Yeah. But I like to think that I should call the overall experience as positive, given that I enjoyed watching all of the episodes. I was just very disappointed in how some of this wrapped up. Yeah. I'm a little more down on the show.

[00:06:07] Like I remember season one, I really like I separate between when Sydney Sweetney and her friend had the drugs and it was good. And when they had their drugs stolen and like I lost mostly interest. And I remember that just kind of tailed off for me. Season two was good. I think I enjoyed it all throughout. Yeah. And then, you know, in some of the middle dead parts of severance, you know, where we were starting to question our attachment to the show.

[00:06:35] White Lotus was had just started. And I remember texting you and saying, like, this is more fun to watch right now than severance. But that was because the reason I said that is because I kind of assumed severance was a far superior show overall. But what I think about White Lotus, like this season kind of confirmed it. It looks so good. It's beautiful to watch. It sounds like the score is so great.

[00:07:02] The actors are so good that I think as you're watching it, you make excuses for the storytelling. You make excuses for the characterization up until like the finale when you can't do it anymore because so much of it doesn't actually work. There's like this promise of depth to the characters. But then ultimately that just there's no depth. And also like just real gaps in the narrative and the storytelling.

[00:07:28] It has a little bit of pseudo profundity, I think, especially this season. Some of the Buddhist stuff, which we'll talk about thematically and the search for the self and, you know, Western attempts to incorporate Buddhist thought. All of that is there and it's potentially interesting, but it just never quite reaches like a truly insightful place.

[00:07:51] I was especially mad at this season because I was defending it up until about the fifth or sixth episode pretty adamantly to Jen, who was never into this season. And then it turned out she was right. I don't like when she's right, when she's vindicated. You know, all that said, I really can't remember a show that's like this or anything like it where it's like I still will watch it next time because it's just enjoyable like moment to moment usually to watch it.

[00:08:20] That's kind of what I meant about like the mix between prestige and soap opera is where it's like, like you said, the sound, the performances and the cinematography are all great. And then like the plot lines, you're like, that's where they skimmed maybe. That's where they got the budget. Well, maybe it's because you're a little logic police and you can't enjoy the vibe and emotional arcs because you're so... Say that. Say what that is because you sent me this. Oh, God.

[00:08:47] Mike White seems like somebody that shouldn't talk about his work ever because I think I took away a star from this season just for hearing him bitch about all the people who are raising legitimate concerns about the plot and story and especially in the finale. And if he wants to complain that it's like our fault, that it's the people's fault.

[00:09:12] So he says, this isn't a police procedural. This is a rumination type show. Oh, I didn't realize it was a rumination type show. So it didn't have to make sense, like the motivations for the characters. And then he says, he finishes the quote. Is this how you watch movies and TV shows? Constant literal police? Yeah. Oh, my God. And I guess, you know, he was responding in that article. So you sent me this quote and I read there. I don't know if you read the actual article.

[00:09:39] A lot of it is about like breaking up with the sound guy, which is very bad. The person who writes the score. That's right. Yeah. And it also was just a very defensive article. He was like, I'm going to leave the country because I can't handle like reading criticisms of this. And it's like, it's how I feel when I hear LeBron James complaining about the media. It's like, all right, you're like literally the most like powerful guy right now. And you're picking out poor Brian Windhorst to like complain about, you know, or something like that.

[00:10:04] LeBron is legitimately like, I hate to say it, but like what he's doing right now is pretty like remarkable. And Mike White is not doing what LeBron is. He's not at the same level in his chosen field. Anyway, let's talk about it because it is a very fun show to talk about. And there was a lot of fun things that happened in this season. It just didn't add up. It's definitely one where the sum of its parts is way better than the whole. Yes. Okay.

[00:10:33] So should we dive into our ranking or do you have general thoughts specifically about how this is going to work? No, like I think the rankings, I'll be able to get the thoughts that I have. All right. So what's your number one? So in general, the Ratliff storyline, like it was the top for me. And within those, the Lachlan Saxon relationship for all the fucked up reasons. But also for good reasons, like Saxon is the one character that I think had some character development written well into him. Yeah.

[00:11:03] Where we actually got like maybe a hint that there was some change going on in him. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. And so I love that. Like the performances. Saxon was so easy to hate. Lachlan just, I think, played this sort of innocent kid, baby faced so well. That dynamic was crazy and creepy. And as a measure of enjoyment, like that's the one I talked about to people the most. And then I'll lump in the Tim and Victoria storyline with them.

[00:11:31] So their parents, like the whole family dynamic, I think, was just like the most enjoyable part. Yeah. And one thing I liked about them, even though they were kind of individually reprehensible, is they all loved each other. Like that was a family that actually loved each other. They all had close relationships. They had kind of easy interactions. Like the fact that Lachlan and Saxon could talk about what happened, like at all, is remarkable. Like so I thought the Saxon arc was great.

[00:12:01] Like that actually had an arc that was connected to the theme. Like he literally had his self-esteem, his sense of self completely obliterated. Because how else? Like how do you bounce back from your little brother jerked you off from the next bed over while he was having sex? Like that's just. While he was the one getting to fuck. Yeah. I think that that's going to completely destroy any sense of like. Talk about ego death. Yes. That's ego obliteration.

[00:12:29] That is the fastest shortcut to enlightenment. But yeah. And then, you know, and I like that it's just little baby steps. Like he grows a little baby soul. And through reading these books and of the whole family, I thought like, yeah, definitely he was the most interesting. I thought Parker Posey was phenomenal. She's awesome. Victoria. Like she's just, I think gives the funniest performance in the whole show. It's so good.

[00:12:55] And if you know people like from the South like that, you know, it's, it's not that far off. Like Jason Isaacs, like he's in like a Xanax haze for most of it. So like he, it really doesn't go anywhere for the longest time. And then I don't love how like he almost kills his family like two different times, you know, like the whole stuff with the blender. I thought it was pretty. The blender thing just doesn't work. Oh God. It did not work.

[00:13:23] I did like his performance though. I felt like you're right. He was in this, this, this Loraz Pam haze. But I also felt his pain and tension throughout. Like I could feel that he was sort of had the weight of the world on his shoulders and like basically trying to suss out his family to see like, will they still love me? Will they still want to be with me? Yeah.

[00:13:43] You know, and it's funny, the finale, like the first half of the finale, like when he's talking to Lachlan and realizing that he's the only one who would be able to live without their, like each of them, the others has said explicitly that like they actually depend on him being rich and successful to want to live. And then Lachlan is the only one who's like, yeah, I could do that. And so he's going to spare him, you know, like that part, the set, but then just the blender is just so annoying.

[00:14:13] And like the fact that he doesn't wash it out, then the fact that also Lachlan doesn't wash it out. It's just absurd. And then he doesn't even die. The fake debt, it just felt so cheap. Yeah. Like they really bugged me. Yeah. That's why the Saxon thing, great, subtle, like he's reading a book at the end on the boat. Yeah. And then I actually have Piper ranked way down below, but like I'll talk about that. I have Piper. I thought that was terrible. It was terrible.

[00:14:39] Like it was so just abrupt and not at all credible given how she had acted up till that point. The reversal to the little princess. No, instant. Like no hints. Like no, this is, this is the thing about the show is you, it really does suck you in. So like what you were saying, thinking that it's a show about character development and the way that they chose to wrap up the season was let's just abandon what we did in these seven episodes.

[00:15:05] There's no, the savvy watcher couldn't have picked up that Piper was going to turn like that. Yeah. It's just not credible. It's not believable based on like how she was acting in the other. It's credible that she might have not wanted to do it and, you know, maybe come home after two weeks or, but just in, oh, I spend one night there. And now I want to go back to my life of wealth and privilege and I want to get all the fancy jewels. She didn't even complain about it when she was there.

[00:15:33] It was great to see Parker Posey's facial expressions. Like I knew it. I knew it. But yeah, it would have been so much better if I bought it, which I absolutely didn't. I am actually not sure what Lachlan's arc was like besides up and down, up and down, up and down really fast. I'm not sure that he had an arc. Paul was telling me that he listened to one of the podcasts with Mike White.

[00:15:57] And he was saying that Lachlan plays this role that you can see is sort of symmetrical with his relationship with Saxon and with Piper in that he brings clarity to both of their lives. He's the one who showed both of them what they really actually want. But him alone, I wasn't moved by the like mystical, you know, I see the monks looking up at me from my death. So it was very stupid. Yeah. So that's why I had them number two.

[00:16:24] I think like they had some of the highest highs, but also aside from the Saxon arc, none of the others were particularly successful. All right. So I'll do my number one and then you can do your number two. I have the fancy cougars as they have been called, the three women. Yeah. I thought that might be the case. Yeah. Yeah. Well, because I think, first of all, I thought all the performances were stellar. All three of them were among the best performances in the whole show.

[00:16:52] There wasn't a tremendous like, I don't know, variation in their story and, you know, getting from the pilot to the finale. Not a ton happened that wasn't kind of already there early on. But I thought they had the closest thing to an interesting and satisfying resolution with the Carrie Coon, you know, monologue being the capstone of that. Carrie Coon is awesome. She's great. And Leslie Bibb is so funny in it.

[00:17:22] And I think Michelle Moynihan is really good too. I forget what their characters' names are. Jacqueline, Laurie, and Kate. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So they weren't ranked highly for me because of what you said, that there's not much movement in their characters. And while I do all agree that they were great performances, it also reeked of wrapping it all up with the one monologue. I guess that can happen with friends.

[00:17:47] It's like slightly more realistic that that can be a thing that would happen when lifelong friends are together. But I kind of didn't believe that there would be that much animosity about her sleeping with... Oh, I did. Valentin. Yeah, Valentin. That she would be so salty about it. A lot of shit came up. You know, like it wasn't just that. Yeah. They didn't give her any shit about being married, which I think they would. It just didn't resonate with me as realistic as it seems to have with you. Yeah.

[00:18:17] I also really like, there's just a lot of subtle stuff going on with them in the finale, I think. When Jacqueline, when she wakes up and she's like, oh shit. You know, I kind of, that was kind of a bitchy thing to do. And she kind of apologizes, but not really when she wakes Lori up knowing. And Lori has had a hell of a night the night before. Or like, I just like them kind of moving together gradually.

[00:18:43] Like I had a subtlety that I found was absent in most of the... Yeah, I agree with that. And I actually think if, you know, I guess some people don't have friends that are that lifelong. And I think that it can characterize the kind of relationship that you have with people when you have so much history. And you really just know them. You're just like, this shit again? It's a different kind of intimacy. Yeah. And yet, that is also what makes them such good friends, you know, which I think is the point.

[00:19:12] That alone is what gives meaning to these friendships or more meaning than they would have. Yeah. I didn't particularly like the whole like, in time is what gives it meaning. I didn't care for that, to be honest. I don't love the phrasing of it, but I like the idea behind it. Like when I think of that with my high school friends and my... It's like we hung out like almost 40 years ago. And it was a moment of true honesty with Laurie when she said like, I've just been sad this whole time. Yeah. Like that resonated.

[00:19:41] So actually that was my number three. Now I'm looking at my collapse categories. So who's your two? My two is... And I say, you know, there's a pretty sharp drop off from Saxon and everything else. Rick and Chelsea was my number two. Now, I almost want to say Rick and Chelsea before the finale. And even then I have some complaints, but it's carried to me by one, Walton Goggins being... I just love that guy. Like he can do no wrong as an actor. I really like his performance.

[00:20:11] And Chelsea was... I don't know. She was a bit of an oasis in the show of negativity. And I think she played an important role in bringing Saxon around. Definitely. And she just never seemed malicious. She was... Even though she was ditzy, she was genuine and she really cared. I hate the way that she went out and I hate the way that Rick went out. But I enjoyed it. The Rick wanting to, you know, find the killer of his father thing for the first seven episodes

[00:20:39] provided enough intrigue to me that I was enjoying it. Yeah. So I agree with you about Chelsea. I thought Amy Le Wood was really, really good in the role. And exactly right. Like she exuded such warm positivity and acceptance. And there was a kind of... Even though I don't think she was a Buddhist, I think she's more kind of a new age version

[00:21:06] of Eastern philosophy, but seemed to embody a lot of the principles. I think that one of the biggest crimes of this season is to take Walton Goggins and make him kind of boring, which he was. He was kind of boring this season. And that's, you know, you just watch Righteous Gemstones and you see what he can do. What he's capable of. Which comes on right afterwards. And the difference is so stark. Like I just didn't think his storyline worked.

[00:21:36] That's why this is lower for me. It's still number four, but it's lower. And Sam Rockwell, I mean, like one of my favorite actors to see on any screen. Like he's so good. And he's very good in this. But even that monologue, like it was so funny at the time and shocking and like all these twists and turns. But I don't think about it. It had no real substance to it. It was just fun to watch the first time. And he's so good.

[00:22:05] And it's just like, it's always great to see him in anything. But there was nothing that interesting about his character. And like I really found Walton Goggins to be like there was not too much going on. He was broody and short. And you're right. Like it was a disservice to the actor. You know, I think he did well what he was given to work with. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Like this is not his fault at all. Like I don't think and like there's some beautiful moments like when he sees Chelsea at the end.

[00:22:35] And but it's so ridiculous that he just went back to the hotel that's owned by the guy that he just went into his house, lied to his wife and pushed him over this. Like and also like he supposedly had this cathartic moment of I faced my demon. I confronted and now I realize they don't need it. And then all the guy has to do is say his mother was a slut. And then he like all of a sudden just has to kill all of them in the middle of the of

[00:23:03] the hotel, which will definitely lead to him and Chelsea getting killed. That was just ridiculous. It was absurd. And I characterized the season finale as a betrayal, a serial betrayal. Like every character in some way is just betrayed. And yeah, whatever moment of insight or catharsis that he had. Yeah. It was fake. Oh, it turns out he was fake. He's just an oaf after all. Yeah. So what was the point of him going to Bangkok and having that moment if that's literally all it would take?

[00:23:31] This is the fake deep that you were talking about that really bothers me is trying to put like annihilate. Like it's being negative for the sake of being negative. It's not deep. The world is complicated. There are shades of gray and sometimes people have a dark soul. This was just like, let's make it the end. Everybody sort of turn into to like the bad versions of themselves. Don't leave it at that. And like it's fake, fake deep. Yeah. You just because you brought up Sam Rockwell, I'll just say like that Sam Rockwell. You're right. There was nothing that his character did that was that deep.

[00:24:01] But man, did I think he stole scenes. Like I love watching that guy. So and that it's absurd. It was such an absurd monologue, but he fucking killed it as that guy. Yeah. They were terrible con men. And it's also not clear like how he would have made any money at all. Never mind the amount of money he seems to have. But like when Sam Rockwell is trying to say, you know, what movies he's directed and he has no idea and he's just making it up on the fly.

[00:24:30] The assassin, the adjuster. Yeah, it was hilarious. Like not even just a Wikipedia on like the ladies movies either. Like not even a quick search on the way to the house. So, yeah, it was fun. That's a good example of this. It's fun to see it like every time you're watching it. It just doesn't add up to anything. All right.

[00:24:56] So higher than Rick and Chelsea, one spot higher than that for me is Mook and Guy Talk. Look, I'm not saying that it's good or it's interesting or that it changed at all, like at any point throughout. But she is so beautiful. She is unbelievably beautiful.

[00:25:16] And it really was like as the season went on, Mike White was like daring me to stop loving her, to not love her because she's so one note and she's so superficial. But he couldn't make me. I was with her till the end. And the Guy Talk actor was good. He was very good. Yeah. And I think it was a tiny little arc that was very White Lotus. He seems like there's a window of opportunity for him to be good and to rise above all this corruption.

[00:25:47] And he doesn't take it. Yeah. You know, that's fine. Yeah. I'm going to save my criticisms of that until I get to them on my list. But I get it. Like at this point, the numbers don't mean as much to me. Yeah. I love Mook, though. Well, she's she is amazingly beautiful. And she's like a K-pop star, which is very weird. Yeah. Like apparently that's really a significant thing. But I don't. That really is. I don't know what. Yeah. I don't know. Totally get that.

[00:26:14] So I had Rick and Chelsea and then I had the three lady friends, Jacqueline, Laurie and Kate. But I already talked about them. And then I had separated Piper out because of everything we said about like I felt that was just one of the bigger betrayals of a character. So much that I wanted to speak about her character separate from the family because it just seemed like it was supposed to almost be the heart of this show. It was supposed to be like the one, you know, there's a one character that went to Thailand for these very good reasons.

[00:26:44] And she was having like, I know it seemed like a central thing. And the way that they abandoned and sort of I as I was watching it, I almost thought surely she's just saying this stuff because she's reached an even higher level of understanding. And that understanding is that family is going to come first for her right now. Yeah. That it wasn't just I turned into a princess really so fast. Yeah. It's obviously not like implausible that somebody like her would be like she was in the finale.

[00:27:12] It just doesn't mesh with how she was. It just doesn't. Exactly. Like she seemed legit like and you don't get to seem legit by just dipping your toes in and taking on the tripping. The one thing I will say is she did trick her whole family. And I was about to say that it was about to say that that should have been a sign. That could have been a sign that she wasn't what she presented. But like I think this would have been better.

[00:27:36] For example, have it that the fact that Lachlan wants to also be there, that be something that makes her not want to do it anymore. Yeah. That's what they seem to be going with. That's what they seem to be going with. And it makes sense. It's like, oh, it's not really because I want to detach from my ego. It's actually just I want to be distinctive from the rest of my family. I want to be better than them. You know, like and this exposed me. Something like that. Not just, oh, no, I want to wear fancy clothes. And I don't want to.

[00:28:07] No indication. There's no air conditioning. Yeah. So Piper was technically my number four. OK, so who do you have now? So I'm my number five was the Belinda in general were what I had as my next two reckings. But but I'll talk about all of the Belinda things as one because they were all pretty disappointing to me. Yeah. So you have on the one hand Belinda and Pornchai who, you know, she develops this relationship with him. He's a really sweet guy.

[00:28:34] They have this like, you know, even if it's just a vacation romance and they start talking about their future plans and she completely fucks him over in the end. And that's connected to the Belinda and Zion and Greg storyline where they end up just extorting Greg for five million dollars in another deep one of the deeper betrayals of a character like ever. It's just like what now we're just supposed to believe Belinda has turned into Tanya. She's turned into the Jennifer Coolidge. Like it's so again, it's so unsubtle. So unsubtle.

[00:29:04] And one of the worst things about this entire show to me is the writing, maybe the performance, but the writing of Zion. Yeah. And in that moment where he turns into like the douchiest like I heard somebody say it's like what Mike White thinks young black guys talk like. Like just like filled with like, oh, slang that's like supposed to be make him sound cool. And like he's a hip MBA business guy. And it was painful to watch. Yeah. It's ride or die if you give us five million dollars.

[00:29:36] It's so painful. No, we were saying in the AUA that he also didn't look real. He really doesn't. He looks like he's like an AI or something or like it was very strange, especially early on. But I am telling you right now, that motherfucker back there is not real. In the finale, I had grown accustomed to like this is an actual human being, but the character was ridiculous.

[00:30:04] I thought the writing of Zion was bad and I thought he was not great either. Yeah, he wasn't good, right? Yeah. Yeah. And you're right. He looks like a like a weird doll, super manicured face. It was like hard to tell like what I was looking at. The stuff with Greg was actually good. I like Greg, actually. Yeah. I really like Greg. I like that he really does want to like watch his girlfriend fuck another guy like it's and imagine that it's his mom and dad. Yeah. I thought Greg in general, his performance.

[00:30:32] I actually for some reason when I would watch him on screen, I was like, I really like this guy. I know he's supposed to be like the most evil guy in this show so far. So then my last one, I was just saving the negativity for the Guy Talk Mook storyline. I was just not at all won over by her beauty. I'm just not, I'm more of a deeper person who cares about character. Yeah. I wasn't seduced by Mook. I liked Guy Talk's performance.

[00:30:57] I think he's just, if he's not like that super sweet guy in real life, then it was a really good acting job. Yeah. It would be funny if he was just a total asshole. That'd be amazing. You know, you feel for him throughout this because Mook is clearly just, you know, she's like Eve with the apple. Yeah. Like trying to get him to turn. And he's like, presents himself as like, he's really believes in nonviolence because of the Buddha. And this is something that's deeply meaningful to him. And you believe it.

[00:31:27] Again, they've spent all this time making us believe these things about these characters. And at the end it's like, oh yeah, I'll shoot him right away in my, with my new job. With my sunglasses in the back. Yeah. It's just like, what? Well, to be fair about right away with my new job, the other two bodyguards were dead. That's true. Logic police. I have an alibi for that one. Did you think he was going to shoot at the end? Yes.

[00:31:55] I kind of did because, I mean, it was also ridiculous that she's like, shoot them. Shoot them. Shoot his son. Shoot my husband's son who I, oh, we didn't even mention that. That was so ridiculous. It was like they were teasing that it was the father for so long. And then it was actually kind of interesting that it didn't turn out to be the father. And then, no, it still is the father. That, that's like the, the thing with, oh, Lachlan's dead. No, he's not dead. Yeah. It just seems so cheap the way that they wrote it.

[00:32:25] Yeah. It felt, it felt like something was off. Like, yeah. I mean, he writes all of it. So it's not like something got messed up in the writer's room or something or. Yeah. No wonder he took it personally. Okay. Yeah. It's kind of amazing that he does that. Yeah. He might, I don't know, look into having a writer's room. Just thought. So I was thinking the same thing. Maybe bounce some, bounce some ideas off. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So I'm done now. Yeah. Me too. That was my last one.

[00:32:54] But I don't regret that I watched this. No. That's right. It was, it was fun. Yeah, it was. And we bitched about it and now we're done. Let's talk about decision theory.

[00:34:01] Welcome back to Very Bad Wizards. This is that time of the episode where we like to remind you how much we appreciate you. May get repetitive for you, but we always like to do it because we do appreciate all of the ways in which you keep us going. We would not be here without you. If you want to engage with us, you can email us verybadwizards at gmail.com. Again, we read everything. We don't have time to respond to everything, but we see it.

[00:34:29] You can tweet or blue sky at us at tambler at peas or at verybadwizards. You can engage in conversations with some fellow listeners on Reddit by going to reddit.com slash r slash verybadwizards. You can also follow us on Instagram at verybadwizards. And if you so choose, you can give us ratings on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify or even leave us a review. We very much appreciate that. And if you'd like to support us in those other tangible ways that keep the lights on for

[00:34:57] us, you can go to our website and click support. And there you'll find some links. You can buy some swag. You can donate to us via PayPal one time or recurring, or you can join our Patreon. And if you do that, we give stuff back to you. We love the community that's grown there. We love interacting with everybody, and we very much appreciate that. If you want to join and you just want to show some support, maybe you just care about

[00:35:24] getting a back catalog that's full of the ad-free episodes and getting a few beats while you're there, you can do that for only $2 a month. If you move up to the next tier, the beginning of our bonus tiers, you get access to hundreds of hours of bonus content, including our Deadwood podcast series, the Reintegrators series that we did with Paul. Lots of one-off episodes with Tamler and with some guests from everything from the Sopranos

[00:35:52] episodes, David Lynch stuff, Star Trek episodes, episodes on the leftovers. Lots of stuff there. Too much to mention in this segment. You'll also get access to our monthly Ask Us Anything series that'll pop up in your RSS feed or in your podcast player of choice. At the $10 a month and up, you'll get all of that plus access to our Five Brothers Karamazov series, some intro psych video lectures that I did, some of Tamler's Play-Doh lectures,

[00:36:22] and you also will get the ability to vote on an episode topic. We do that a couple times a year. Finally, at the $20 tier, you get everything that I just mentioned. Plus, you get to be the ones to ask us questions for our monthly Ask Us Anything, and you also get to see us answering those awkwardly on video, unedited on video. I know. I know. It seems like it's worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars for that, but only $20 a month.

[00:36:50] So thank you once again to everybody. Your continued support means the world to us. Your messages, comments, and interactions are food for our soul. Thank you, everybody. And now back to the episode. All right. Let's get to the main segment. And we're going to talk about a couple of logic puzzles, probability puzzles, challenges for the rationalist community, both in different ways. So the first one is the Monty Hall problem.

[00:37:19] Second one we'll talk about is Newcomb's problem or Newcomb's paradox. So the Monty Hall problem is based on the TV show Let's Make a Deal. Did you ever watch that? I did. Me too. Yeah, did you? Yes. I really liked it. Yeah. And there was nothing like when you were sick as a kid and you would get to watch like The Price is Right and Let's Make a Deal and like those things. I thought Let's Make a Deal was the best of all of them. It was the most interesting of all of them.

[00:37:45] I think because you had to weigh a lot of options and you were taking risks, it's very fun to think about how you would act in that if you were presented with that choice. But here is the probability puzzle that was brought to public awareness by Marilyn Vos Savant. She had this Ask Marilyn column in Parade magazine. Like I can kind of picture it, but I don't know what kind of magazine it was. Do you?

[00:38:15] Oh, it was distributed in newspapers every Sunday. Oh, okay. That makes sense. Right. We would get it in the Boston Globe actually. Yeah, yeah. So here was the puzzle. Someone actually sent this in to her. Suppose you're on a game show and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car. Behind the other is goats. You pick a door, say number one. And the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say number three, which has a goat. He then says to you, do you want to switch from number one to number two?

[00:38:46] Is it to your advantage to switch the choice? So Marilyn Vos Savant's response was, yes, the contestant should switch to the other door because that raises your probability of winning from one third, one out of three to two out of three. So obviously you make that switch and it causes this big controversy and brouhaha. Quoting Wikipedia now, many readers of Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial

[00:39:15] and rejected her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, 10,000 readers, including nearly a thousand with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them calling Savant wrong. Even when given explanations, simulations and formal mathematical proofs, many people did not accept that switching is the best strategy. Paul Erdos, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was

[00:39:43] shown a computer simulation demonstrating Savant's predicted result. This is mind boggling to me, right? It's crazy. Because it's a very simple problem and you don't need formal mathematical proofs. You certainly don't need simulations. So what's interesting about this, I thought one of the reasons I wanted to talk about it is even though it is actually simple and it's, I think you can give a simple explanation of why you switch doors.

[00:40:09] It's very hard to see and it's very hard to intuit beforehand. Yeah. Like the Erdos thing. Yeah. Is mind boggling, but it is simple, but like it confused the shit out of me. Like when I first heard it, like I could not understand why it wasn't just 50-50. Right? Yeah. And I think this is what we were saying. Like when you know a little bit about probability, you know that like, you know, when you have two options, it's 50-50. That just intrudes on anything. And it took me a while.

[00:40:38] I would hear the explanation for it and I would get it and then I would forget. I would just completely forget. And I would have to like relearn. Wait, why is it two thirds? And I would need it to be played with the hundred doors, which is what makes you much easier to get the intuition. But here's the basic idea, right? Like when you first pick a door, you have a one out of three chance of getting the car instead of the goat. So then the host will open another door, right?

[00:41:04] And he knows this is a key part of the problem. He knows where the goat is and where the car is. He's always on that second move going to open a door where there is a goat. So given that information, the thing that's so hard to wrap your head around is like the car is behind one of those two doors 66% of the time because the one you picked is only going to be right one out of three times. One out of three times.

[00:41:32] So given that he's always going to open a door with the goat, that means that you have a 66% chance if you switch. You know, when it's put like that, it seems like, wait, why is this even tricking people that much? But you're right. Like I, it took me a while to figure out why this was right too. And it really was, I think, going to a hundred doors and imagining that. That's the thing that means, oh, okay, I get it. Yeah. By the way, like, I feel like we need to point out that in Let's Make a Deal, they really did have goats behind doors.

[00:42:03] This isn't just a weird philosopher who made up like there's a violinist connected to you. It's like they actually had an actual goat that you could choose if you switch doors sometimes. Aside from the probability getting a little confusing, because when you start, when you think two doors, what are my chances? 50-50. There is this like tendency that people have already not to switch. So people, for some reason, they think that the counterfactual of losing if you switched

[00:42:29] is worse than losing if you stayed with your initial choice. It's like people like kick themselves more at the thought that they switch. I feel that a lot of the time. Like, you know, it's like I would rather stay in a car lane that turns out to be the slowest one, like then switch from to the car lane. And then it turns out the one I just came from is actually faster. Yeah. That's, I totally feel that too. This is like something that happens in multiple choice exams to students all the time where

[00:42:58] it feels worse if you erased it and circled the next one and you got it wrong. I wanted to give the 99 version if it's not obvious, but like the 99 door version really illustrates how the knowledge of Monty Hall is playing a role here. Suppose there's doors one through 100 and you pick just door number one, let's say. And Monty Hall opens 98 doors to show you goats. And there's one door that he didn't open up.

[00:43:24] Like the chances are going to be like obviously really high that that door that he didn't open contains the car. Right. And that just sort of sharpens it. Yeah. Then you realize, oh, well, of course, given that he's always going to open a door with the goat until it's just your door and another door that, you know, either has the car or it doesn't or you had the original one. Yeah. That's it's going to be 99 out of 100 times. It's going to be behind the one that you should switch to. Yeah.

[00:43:54] Probabilities are tough. Like I like what you were saying about the reason let's make a deal was fun because it does put you in those positions where it was constantly like, I mean, it still exists as a game show now. Yeah. So it'll just be like, okay, you picked something before we show you here's a hundred bucks. Yeah. Well, that's the thing. That's what he would do also, Monty Hall. He would just take out like a bill, like a billfold, you know, and he would just peel off like $1,800 bills. How about $200?

[00:44:23] Like $1,800 don't open that door. Yeah. And then sometimes they're like, no, I'm going to open the door and then it would be blah, blah. I don't think they actually got the goatee. Yeah. I don't think they got to keep the goatee. There's another thing about this whole story about all of those people writing in so certain, like this is why this problem is fascinating. It's the certainty. It's not just that it's a hard problem because that would be trivial. Like whatever that wouldn't. It's the certainty that people had. The belligerence.

[00:44:53] The belligerence. I don't know if you read at all about Marilyn Vos Savant. Okay. So Marilyn Vos Savant was this woman who, she had the highest recorded IQ in history. Oh yeah, I did see that. Yeah. And so she, her IQ was estimated at like above 200. I don't remember what it was. Like 224. Like I didn't even know IQs. Yeah. That went into the 200s. Yeah. Yeah. That's an interesting part, which I'll get to because it turns out to matter.

[00:45:20] So she was in the Guinness Book of World Records. And I remember like, I read that she was in the Guinness Book of World Records from say, for like three years or something. And I was like, oh, then I guess somebody came along and scored higher than her. But no, what happened is that she, as smart as she is, realized that like IQ was just like an unreliable metric. And she thought it was like not meaningful to write, like to say that she had the highest given how unreliable the measures actually were.

[00:45:50] And whatever measures originally gave that estimate were like extra shitty. So she just has to be removed. Good for her. Yeah. Isn't that honorable? I know. Is there like an asterisk next to the new guy that's there? The new guy. It was like the NBA bubble. The bubble. The championship. So here you have somebody who got a column precisely because she's the world's smartest person, right?

[00:46:18] Whatever you think of IQ, like obviously it's capturing something and something. That would indicate that you're good at exactly this kind of thing. And so you have like a bunch of, well, actually people writing in with this confidence and say you can't help but read the sexism in it. Yeah. It's tragic that the term mansplaining didn't exist at this time, you know? Yeah. Yeah. No, it's ridiculous. Like it's, it's like the, this, this casual sexism.

[00:46:48] Oh yeah. She might be the smartest person in the world, but she's. It's a woman. It's a cookie. Yeah. It must've felt so satisfying because like there are these, the, I was watching a video where they were, they had quotes from the letters that were written to her. And there was one guy who was like, I think he was a mathematician or a statistician who was super confident. You know, he said something like whatever, I'll eat my hat, whatever, whatever version of like publicly announcing that if he was wrong, like he would own up to it.

[00:47:17] And he did, but he said it was one of the most embarrassing things in his entire career. It's because how can you be like a famous, like mathematician, like this mathematical genius. And you can't tell that two thirds is higher than one thirds. Like that's, what's so crazy about it is the belligerence, you know, how adamant everyone was. And it just comes down to that. It's like someone called it a statistical illusion, comparing it to visual illusions.

[00:47:46] I think that's right. That's what it seems like, but it's not clear. Unlike with visual illusions, why it's happening. Right. That's right. So maybe the status quo bias plays a role, but let me give a shot at why. I have a theory too. Yeah. Okay, good. So we're trained, you know, if you're trained a little bit in probability, you learn things really quickly about like, say the gambler's fallacy where, so I'm flipping a coin. And, you know, I flipped five heads in a row and you say, what are the chances that this

[00:48:15] sixth one is going to be heads? And you, you know, the naive person might be like, oh, that would be really unlikely to flip six heads in a row. And in the statistician or whatever, you know, the prof says, ah, but you're not realizing that each of these events is independent. So like the minute you have the coin on the sixth toss, it's 50, 50, just as it was on the first toss on the second toss. By the way, I remember trying to teach Bella this, like, of course, right? Because I like an annoying dad.

[00:48:44] And I was like, you know, coins are 50, 50. Like if you flip them enough times, you'll realize that it's 50, 50. And I flipped 10 heads in a row. And I was like, oh fuck, there goes that demonstration. So, okay. So you're taught that it's independent. Like these events are independent. So now you have this situation where two decisions are made. The first one was you pick one of the doors. And now the second one is between two doors because you're not going to pick the open goat door, right? Say he opened door B and there was a goat. You have between door A and door C.

[00:49:13] And so you think to yourself, look, whether it's in door A or in door C is 50, 50. So it doesn't matter if I switch or if I stay. So I might as well stay. And I think that's what's fucking with people. And I think the key really is to understand that the problem has changed the minute he opened that door because he didn't choose randomly. No, right. I guess he could have chosen randomly if you had the car. Then he could have chosen one of either goat.

[00:49:42] Like he could have done either of those. But if he was truly choosing randomly, he might open the car. Yeah, which he would never do. So I had that same thought. Oh, people are brought up on the gambler's fallacy and they know that. And so it seems like switching would be, you know, like it's just 50, 50. So you might as well stick like here. There are two options and it's 50, 50. So you should post you put in our Slack, a YouTube where they explain it.

[00:50:09] And it's like breathtaking to me how simple it is. You know, when it's explained to you, it's it's really basically like you had a 33 percent chance here. That means that it's 66 percent is going to be one of those two other doors. That's the actual choice is it's between yours and two other doors. It boils down to that. Your door versus two other doors. Obviously, you're going to go to the other to the two other doors. Like that's a that's a strict analog of the problem.

[00:50:38] No, it's true. But yeah. So this is like I'll post it in show notes. This is a channel that I love called Numberphile where he just interviews a bunch of mathematicians and they go through like super cool problems. And they did one on the Monty Hall problem and they had a statistician do all the explanations, tell this story. And still, just like with Parade Magazine, all the comments on that original video were people arguing.

[00:51:03] Like some people doing exactly what the writers to the Parade Magazine way back in 19 whatever 80 something were doing, which is like just doubling down. And so he posted the follow up explainer video. We're in like three minutes. If you don't get it by then, then yeah, it is. It's it's it's a really interesting, I don't know, psychological fact. It's funny. Like when I try to explain it to people, I get like a little anxiety kicking in that I'm going to fuck it up. And like my explanation ends up being bad.

[00:51:32] I've definitely been in that position. Yeah. Interesting little psychological quirk. There's not other things that are much like it. The other kind of statistical biases that we're prone to are like they're settled once it's explained to you. Yeah, that's right. There's not a lot. It's weird. There's not a lot of arguing. Do you know the birthday statistics? Oh, yeah, I do. Like how many people do you have to have in a room where it's 50-50 that there are going to be two people with the same birthday? Right.

[00:52:03] Yeah. And it turns out to be like pretty damn low. Yeah. And so that's hard to understand. I think this is why. There's a pretty simple reason. If I'm thinking if I'm in a room with 23 people or 22 other people, it does not make sense that the chances are 50-50 that somebody has my birthday. Right. Like I'm comparing myself to 22 other people and that feels low. But what you have to remember is that it's any two people having the same birthday.

[00:52:31] And so you're not just going me and person two, me and person three, me and person four. It's person two and person three, person two and person four, and then person three and person four. Like you're doing like tons and tons of comparisons. And so with that many comparisons, then it goes up. But once that's explained, it's like a hawk. And it's kind of a much harder math in the first place too. So like, yeah. If there's anything it teaches me is that probability is like way less intuitive than it might seem.

[00:52:58] And I think there's a lot of legitimate debate on certain ways of understanding probability. I mean, not even talking about Bayesian versus frequentist. But like I see in sports so often like a use of probability, you know, like the win probability, for example, of a game. Those are just made up numbers. They're not like they're like, oh, my God. And they with four minutes left in the game, they had a 92 percent win probability.

[00:53:27] It's like, what does it mean? What does it mean? Yeah. What does it even mean? Yeah. It is fascinating, though, that bookies live and die by this sort of thing. But I guess they give themselves enough of a lot of it. No, I find that whole thing setting lines, like bookmakers setting lines and what to set it at. And they'll also like to take a stand sometimes. And they'll actually put themselves more at risk, take more money for one side than another. Because they have information. Like all that to me, I think is super interesting.

[00:53:54] But probably unrelated to the next thought experiment that we're going to talk about, which is Newcomb's problem or paradox. Like I said in the opening, I don't see how it's a paradox. But what is that, David? Tell our audience. Okay. So there was a guy named William Newcomb who originally came up with this problem. But it was popularized by the philosopher Robert Nozick. It goes like this.

[00:54:21] Suppose there's a genie who is, as Nozick says it, is nearly 100 percent accurate in predicting your choices. And the genie says, I'm going to give you a choice, simple choice. I'm going to put two boxes right in front of you. One is clear. So you can see the contents. And in that box, there's $1,000. The other box is opaque. You have no idea what's in it.

[00:54:45] And so the genie says, in that box, the opaque one, I have either put a million dollars or nothing. Now, I'm so good at predicting that I know what choice you're going to make. But these are the choices that you have. You can either take only the opaque box, in which case I will have put a million dollars in there. Or you can choose to take both boxes, box A and B, in which case I will have put nothing.

[00:55:13] Basically, he says, if I've predicted that you're going to choose two boxes, I will have put nothing in box A, the opaque box. So the question is, do you take box, let's call the opaque box, box B. And the clear box is box A. And so the choice that you have is either take box A, the clear box, and box B, where you don't know what's in there. Or you just take box B. Right? And so, again, the genie has said, if I predicted that you're just going to take box B, I will put a million dollars in there.

[00:55:41] So, do you take one box or two boxes? Those are the choices that you have. Now, the beautiful thing about this problem, as Nozick points out, is that the answer is completely obvious to everybody. It's just obvious in completely different directions at about 50-50. And that's my experience. So, Tamar, I don't think I've talked to you about this, if your answer, maybe we did way back in the day. But are you a one boxer or a two boxer? So, I am a one boxer. I would take just the opaque box.

[00:56:11] But I don't think it's obvious. I just, like, it's a more of an all things considered judgment for me, for reasons I'll explain. But, yeah, that's what I would do. Okay. So, I've always been a two boxer. I've always argued with Nikki about this because she's a one boxer also. And with Sean Nichols about it because he's a one boxer. And we had just decided to talk about this, right, a couple of days ago.

[00:56:38] And I went to a meeting with a chair of my department who is like a quad guy. So, he teaches stats. And I just was asking him and the other person we were in the meeting. So, I was like, this is completely an aside. But what are you, like, in the Newcomb's Paradox? And he looks at me and he goes, are you kidding me? And I was, like, a little afraid. I was like, did I say something wrong? And he gets up and he pulls out two boxes. One with a wad of money in it and one that's opaque. He pulls it out of where?

[00:57:07] He pulls it out from his shelf. And I was like, what? And he's like, dude. He's like, for the psychology commencement address, I'm going to use Newcomb's Paradox as an example. And, like, I created these two boxes. And he's like, I just decided it, like, yesterday or two days ago to do this. So, there's something in the air about Newcomb's Paradox. But he's a fervent one boxer. And he was shocked that I would be a two boxer. Yeah, you should maybe take a hint here. Everyone you know and respect is a one boxer.

[00:57:35] Even some people I don't respect. Okay, so here's my reasoning. It's either in there or it's not. So, like, as the problem is stated, the genie or whatever you call it, the predictor, has made their choice. If they thought I was going to pick one box, it's going to be a million dollars in there. If they thought I was going to pick two boxes, it's going to be nothing in there. So, that decision has been made. That ship has sailed. He can't switch it after he tells me the problem. So, why not take both boxes? There's either a million in there or not.

[00:58:05] I don't know. To me, this doesn't seem like a problem that has a right answer. It's not like the Monty Hall problem. It really kind of does depend on psychological facts about you. And that's why I kind of am a one boxer is I feel like even just the differences in sums. Like, I can stomach losing $1,000. But it would be tough to stomach and live with yourself if you lost a million dollars.

[00:58:32] Maybe because even though everything you said is absolutely right, you're like, I don't know. But I don't know. Maybe if I had had a better intention going in and maybe if I had shown more sincerity before, you know, which is really – and just like – I don't know. Like, I just don't want to have to think about that for a million dollars. But whatever. For $1,000, I could handle it. We've lost $1,000 because we didn't invoice somebody, you know.

[00:59:00] Like, that's true. That's true. So for you, the numbers might matter. Well, I think that's important because like if it was much closer than that, right? If it was $10,000 or $25,000, I'd probably be a two boxer. Oh, interesting. And then also how reliable the predictor is. Although that doesn't matter as much as you'd think. It doesn't. That's true.

[00:59:25] So if you do the expected utility, if you like just calculate what the probabilities are in like that standard way, it seems to be clear that even if you're at 90% predictive accuracy or 80% or whatever, that it seems rational to take only the one box. For expected utility? Yeah. I don't get that. How is it possible that expected utility wouldn't be all 100% take both boxes? Well, because you really do believe that the predictor is accurate at 80% chance or 90% chance. Oh, I see.

[00:59:55] And you're multiplying that chance. Well, then it would have to be because the difference, like all you're sacrificing is $1,000. That's the other thing is if you're a two boxer or by going to one box, aren't you just sacrificing $1,000? You still get the million. So who gives a shit? A million and a million and one is the same. I mean, that doesn't really affect my intuition because my intuition is they're both, it's either there or not. Like my, my decision is, it's like such a simple one. It's there's either a million dollars in there or there's not.

[01:00:25] So it just seems like a no brainer to take the two. Don't you also kind of feel like it seems obvious, but you know, like a lot of people thought the Monty Hall problem seemed obvious. Like maybe I'm not like metaphysically informed enough to figure out like how this might work. And so I'll just be on the safe side. I don't play safe. It's like wearing a bicycle helmet. Take the two boxes. Live a little. Take the two.

[01:00:52] You're like James in Twin Peaks, riding your motorcycle, taking the two boxes. Yeah. With my leather jacket and my cigarette. Kevin Bacon in Footloose. Here. Okay. Here's a version that I've never read. So I think I came up with it. And if, if I did, then please praise me. Suppose Tamler that the genie said, okay, this I'm presenting this choice to Jen. Jen.

[01:01:22] And you know that Jen's a one boxer. Like you're like totally convinced you've talked about it. You know, Jen keels over and dies. And in her will said, I want Tamler to make any decisions for me. So now you're faced with these two boxes that were for Jen and the predictor, right? Like would have predicted that there was, that Jen was going to be a one boxer. So there's a million dollars in there.

[01:01:48] Is it obvious to you that in that case, you might as well take the two boxes? No. Number one, I would want to honor her choice. No, no. She said explicitly, like let Tamler choose whatever he wants. Yeah. But the predictor made it for Jen. And the predictor is not even pretending that he's taking my psychology into account. I see. Yes, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Then I would take both boxes, I guess. Like, especially if the numbers are closer together, but probably in any case.

[01:02:16] I really do think a million dollars and a million dollars and 1,000 are the same. Right. But it's like critical to my position that I believe I'm also getting the million dollars. Like, I don't feel like I'm risking anything. That's my point. Like, if you just take the box, which is where he says a million dollars is, right? Then, like, you're getting a million dollars if, you know, the guy's right. Right?

[01:02:41] And all you're losing by not being a two boxer is $1,000 on top of your million dollars. That's just like, who gives a fuck? Yeah. But you're just focusing on, like, the wrong part of what's driving my intuition here. What's driving my intuition is exactly in the Jen case where it's like, you might as well. Like, it makes zero difference to take. It's like icing on the cake to get the extra $1,000 because it's either in the box or it's not. Like, I get that. I understand it.

[01:03:06] Like I said, that's why when you put the numbers closer together, like, if you make it 50,000 and 100,000, then I'm taking both boxes. But my point is those kinds of things matter. And the reason why at the margins, when it's a million and 1,000, the reason why it matters at the margins is, like, I don't know if I fully understand metaphysics. What if, like, the arrivals, like, aliens are right and time is this more, like, flat circle thing.

[01:03:36] And so there's a way in which what I'm deciding actually does determine it in some, like, metaphysical way that I don't understand. So, like, I think that's a possibility in a case like this if I was ever presented with it. And so I'm going to just, like, be safe because a million dollars and a million dollars and 1,000 are equivalent to me. Right. So, yeah, it doesn't become really a problem if it's, like, equivalent numbers. But you're right.

[01:04:04] It's reverse causation is what's driving. Like, my disbelief at reverse causality like that is what's driving my intuition. Where I'm, like, my decision can't then cause him to have either put a million dollars. Which I share that intuition. But, like, I don't think it's infallible, you know. Right. It is possible that he predicted that you would be a two-boxer and put zero in there. And you end up just picking the one box. Now, I thought of that.

[01:04:33] That was the one thing that made me reconsider also is, wait, what if I'm actually going to be a one-boxer but he thinks I'm going to be a two-boxer and I get jack shit. But then in that case, like, all I lost was $1,000. Right. $1,000 in whatever, you know, 1956 money. And soon money is going to, like, $1,000 will be the difference between life and death for us, you know. So, yeah, yeah, maybe.

[01:05:01] So, okay, tell me if you think that this matters. Like, my sense in talking to people, and I can't put my finger on this, but my sense is that people who are true determinists are more likely to be one-boxers. Now, I know you're not, but I don't know what that means for this problem. But, like, there is something in their determinism. That makes you one-box? I don't know what work it's doing. Oh, I see. That makes them a one-boxer.

[01:05:25] Because they kind of, even though they would, if they're having a philosophical debate, they would say we're not fatalists, we're determinists. They would still think that there was something about that that implied some kind of pre-foreknowledge. Yeah, like your choice was going to be your choice and maybe that means that the predictor can really know. And maybe it's like some weird latent, you know, free will belief in me that thinks I can flip it last minute. Like I can walk around saying, oh, one-boxer, I'm a one-boxer. Existentialist.

[01:05:54] Like, you are choosing to be a different person at that moment. Yeah, right. Which, as Nikki pointed out, I'm fucking up the plan if I'm on a podcast talking about being a two-boxer because then the genie's going to know. So I really should have defended the one-box solution this whole time so I could just build my case. I'm not saying I'm doing that, but I'm not saying it.

[01:06:21] David Lewis actually wrote an interesting paper that I came across saying that this is just a prisoner's dilemma. It's the same thing where you, like, whatever they are going to decide is already decided and so you should always defect. In this case, defect is like taking the two boxes for the same reason. It's like these things are completely independent. I have a free choice at this moment that doesn't affect what this other person has done, which is kind of interesting.

[01:06:51] But I do think that, like, people trying to come up with a rational choice. Yeah, like what's the rational choice in this scenario? That's – I think that's wrong. There's all these other things, like how you're going to feel if you take two boxes and all you get is $1,000. Because, you know, as much as you intuit that it doesn't matter at that moment, let me ask you this.

[01:07:17] What if you take the two boxes and it's just $1,000? Are you not going to think at that point, oh, man, maybe like what if I had taken the one box? I could have a million dollars. I'm going to die on the two-boxer hill. It's like when they ask Bertrand Russell, like if he dies and there actually is a god and he gets one question. He's like there was not enough evidence. That's how I'm going to go out and be like, well. There was only $1,000 in there. So at least I got the $1,000.

[01:07:47] By the way, do you remember in Seven, the movie Seven, at the very end where he's going, what's in the box? What's in the box? What's in the box? What a performance that was. There is one thing I was going to say about the status is paradox. Because I agree with you. It's weird that it's called a paradox.

[01:08:07] But maybe it feels like a paradox because when you put two people together who have very clear intuitions in opposite directions, that's the paradox. It's not like within you that you feel contradicted, that you feel like there's any kind of contradiction. And I guess that's why I don't think it's a paradox is because I don't think it's obvious. Like I could, in certain moods, be a two-boxer.

[01:08:35] Like I said, the numbers make a difference for me. It's not a paradox if you can just toggle the numbers a bit and change my mind about it. Like I really do think it has all the kind of metaphysical elements to it no matter what. But then there are also these other things. Just your level of risk aversion, your level of how much do you hate yourself if you've made a choice that cost you a huge amount of money, you know.

[01:09:03] And how confident are you in your metaphysical intuitions about reverse causality? Like all this stuff I think actually matters in terms of like you're all things considered judgment, which is what I think this is. But I think people look at it as more like something you should run through your model and it'll just issue out the rational choice. Yeah. Or just my intuition. So it's interesting because all of the stuff that you said matters not a bit to me. Like the numbers don't matter.

[01:09:33] It's so clear to me that it's either there's either money in there or not at the time of the choice that you could use apples and pears. Like to me, it's just obvious that you pick two boxes because it's either or not. So I don't feel like I'm taking a risk by choosing two boxes. Yeah, but I – right. I guess as commonly happens, I just have so much more epistemic humility when it comes to – I was waiting for the humility card. Like I think like – yeah. And like I have your intuition about that.

[01:10:00] But, you know, like in any kind of case like this where you don't even understand how this genie or this prediction machine actually works and, you know, if it really does – And, you know, I think in the best versions of this problem, you get evidence that, you know, in the last 500 cases, this thing has been right. And it's like 99 percent over time. It's like I don't know if I want to just fuck with this. Just take the one box and like – yeah, you know, I get it.

[01:10:29] It seems like you should just take both of them because the money is either in there or it isn't. Yeah, it's like my decision can't fuck with it. It's either in there or it isn't. That's the thing, right. It's like an intuition I have. It's just not like – it doesn't outweigh some of these other considerations for me. Right. You know, I think there's a version of what I was saying with my example about Jen and you that Sean told me, but somebody else is, Sean Nichols.

[01:10:54] He said, imagine that you have a friend who is allowed to peek and he peeks and he tells you, yeah, take both boxes. There, I guess it's clear you take both boxes. Yeah. I guess you have to trust your friend. Yes, if you trust your friend. Yeah. But there is something about both my example and Sean's example, adding another person to the equation just fucks with the whole thing. And eyewitness at that moment also. Yeah. Exactly.

[01:11:20] Nikki called it the interpersonal aspect of it as fucking the whole thought experiment up. I don't know. I guess if I really believed that there was a time machine and the genie had gotten into the time machine, seeing what I was going to choose, and then gone back in time and set up the boxes, I guess I would be forced to be a one boxer. Although I don't think – like how could I not be? I think you just, no matter what, just want two boxes over one box.

[01:11:48] Whatever the parameters of the choice is. It could be – Even if there's a donkey in – You're going to be shot in the head if you take both boxes. I'll die on the rationality of my choice. It is weird to me, though, that I'm in disagreement with so many people, as you say, so many people I respect. Oh, this is what I was going to bring up. I found this on the Wikipedia, but there is this fill paper survey that goes out to philosophers every few years. Yeah, yeah.

[01:12:17] Like what are your intuitions? Yeah. Yeah, like are you a determinist? Are you – whatever. I actually took that one last year, or 2020, not last year. And they report that there's a small difference in the direction here that slightly more philosophers report being a two boxer than a one boxer. 39% to 31.2%. So I'm not crazy. No, you're just on the spectrum. Maybe. Maybe.

[01:12:46] As my two boxers unite. I also – I came across a paper that said being a two boxer is strongly associated with psychopathy. So – No. Did you really? Yeah, it's a cool problem though because it does get – like it triggers people. And it is interesting.

[01:13:13] Like the one boxer, like having to defend your choice is so much less straightforward than it is in the case of the two boxer. The money is in there or it's not. Like I'm taking both boxes regardless just makes so much sense. Like – and then the one boxer has to be like, yeah, but – you know, like whatever. And so like it's funny that most people nevertheless are one boxers. Like what does Sean say is his reasoning? No, no. Most – well, most philosophers are two boxers. No, no, no.

[01:13:43] But I mean like most of the people you know. Most philosophers, that doesn't mean anything. Don't use that to support your opinion for anything. But why does Sean – why is Sean and everyone you love a one boxer? I don't know other than like they're pulled by – and I guess this is a good way to put it as you were saying.

[01:14:04] If you've seen 99 people go up there and everybody who chose two boxes got only $1,000 and everybody who chose one box got a million dollars, they think it's just a no-brainer. Maybe it's like the Humian thing to do is to take one box. Wait, why? Well, because it's just constant conjunction. Oh, yeah, right, right. Like I don't think it fully works, but there is something empiricist about taking just the one box. I don't know.

[01:14:33] I remember when Lai was very young, I presented her this problem and her solution was to say, give me $20,000. She's like the kid's trolley problem that we see. Everybody – video that everybody sends us. Everyone sends us. Like we've probably gotten a thousand times and it's – yeah, Eliza was like – She's just bargaining. And I was like, yeah, but it's not that. It's either –

[01:15:02] And she's like, no, $20,000. You know, that's interesting. I'm going to ask Bella. I don't think I've ever asked her this and I bet you she's going to be a one boxer. Yeah, because you love her and she's smart. Exactly. God, I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness spreading the truth of two boxes. Two boxes are better than one. I think you'll get some support among our listeners maybe. Maybe. But this might be one of those rare times where everybody comes out and you're on your side. Yeah.

[01:15:31] Although, like I said, I don't know if my argument is that good. It's like just – I don't know. It is funny that I think – Vibes. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, that was fun. Join us next time on Very Dead Wizards. The Greatest!