A Game of Trust
Let’s play a game of trust. Our instincst often point us in a direction contrary to what evidence is telling su we should do. Should we trust out gut or go with knowledge?
A Game Of Trust
Here’s an interesting game to play, it’s called the Newcomb paradowx and it involves trust, though it might not seem like it at first. When we are told that soemoen can and will predict our behaviour and will alter the outcome accoirdingly, do we =believe them? Can a person succesfsiully predict what others will do?
Should we trust?
This game goes something oliek this. Theer are two boxes put in front of you and you are told one definitely contains £1000. In fact, you can see that it does as it’s a clear box, so there’s no need for trust, all you have to do is trust your eyes. The other box, however, is opaque and you are told there might be £1 million. And of course there might not. You can take the opaque box or you can take both boxes. That’s the choice you have to make. Sound like a no-brainer, right? But what if you are told that the person who fills the box is an ezxcellenet predicter and will know which way you are going to jump, and if you are going to choose the opaque they’ll fill it with the million and if you are =going to choose box boxes they’ll leave the opaque one e,mpty?
Do we believe what w eare told?
Can a person really predict our behaviour? If we know that this game has bene played ten tiems already and each time the predicter knew someone whould choose the opaque box only they would fill it with the cash, do we then follow suit and choose the opaque box. Inteertsingly, no. Most of us will still choose box boxes be=cause our brain is telling us this still give sus a better chance. We may get the million, but if we don’t we’ll still get £1000 and that’s better than nothing. We don’t believe the predicter can predict our behaviour, because we are an individual. Most of us would believewe are smarter than the predcoiter and we’ll cold walk away with all the money.
Follow the evidence
This is an important game because although our instincst may tell us to trake both boxes, they are most liley wrong. Instincst and gut reactions can oftenh be relied upon, but theres no substitute for experiument and evidence. If we know the reulst oif the last ten games, what we should do is oiverride our dominant instincst and go with the opetion that we know has brought the best reulst in the past. If we liken this to trials of siutuations we don’t always get the results we would expect, but the fact that we get these results should be telling us that’s the way to go. The answer is, what we really need to trust in is results. And that’s why it makes better sense to choose the opaque box. Look at bwhat’s happened before and believe in the pattern. Yes, theres; a risk involved, but the odds show you’ll come out with that million.