Executive summary: This exploratory post introduces a “pragmatic decision theory”—a flexible, outcome-oriented approach that endorses causal one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem—and argues that adopting such a mindset can empower individuals to pursue extraordinarily ambitious goals, including literally trying to save the world, despite high prior odds of failure.
Key points:
Pragmatic decision theory is defined as a flexible, meta-causal approach: one chooses to act based on whichever belief or decision theory leads to the best expected outcome, incorporating Bayesian updates and pragmatic evaluation of effectiveness.
Causal one-boxing is justified by the idea that predictors will have already anticipated one’s reasoning style; therefore, identifying as a one-boxer leads to better expected results, even under causal reasoning.
This theory helps navigate thorny problems like Pascal’s Mugging and the Simulation Hypothesis by framing them in terms of outcome-driven reasoning—choosing beliefs and actions based on their practical implications rather than epistemic purity.
The same logic applies to audacious projects, such as attempting to “literally save the world”: adopting beliefs and mindsets that make success more likely (e.g. extreme agency, radical realism) increases expected value even in low-probability scenarios.
Heroic responsibility, as described here, involves choosing to take personal responsibility for outcomes despite overwhelming odds and full awareness of one’s limitations—balancing ambition with rational self-reflection and ongoing adaptation.
Caveats include moral nuance and realism: not everyone should take this path, and pragmatic decision theory acknowledges situations where inaction or refusal (e.g., if you can’t swim) is the more rational, outcome-maximizing choice.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post introduces a “pragmatic decision theory”—a flexible, outcome-oriented approach that endorses causal one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem—and argues that adopting such a mindset can empower individuals to pursue extraordinarily ambitious goals, including literally trying to save the world, despite high prior odds of failure.
Key points:
Pragmatic decision theory is defined as a flexible, meta-causal approach: one chooses to act based on whichever belief or decision theory leads to the best expected outcome, incorporating Bayesian updates and pragmatic evaluation of effectiveness.
Causal one-boxing is justified by the idea that predictors will have already anticipated one’s reasoning style; therefore, identifying as a one-boxer leads to better expected results, even under causal reasoning.
This theory helps navigate thorny problems like Pascal’s Mugging and the Simulation Hypothesis by framing them in terms of outcome-driven reasoning—choosing beliefs and actions based on their practical implications rather than epistemic purity.
The same logic applies to audacious projects, such as attempting to “literally save the world”: adopting beliefs and mindsets that make success more likely (e.g. extreme agency, radical realism) increases expected value even in low-probability scenarios.
Heroic responsibility, as described here, involves choosing to take personal responsibility for outcomes despite overwhelming odds and full awareness of one’s limitations—balancing ambition with rational self-reflection and ongoing adaptation.
Caveats include moral nuance and realism: not everyone should take this path, and pragmatic decision theory acknowledges situations where inaction or refusal (e.g., if you can’t swim) is the more rational, outcome-maximizing choice.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.