This stupid video made me realize why Whites are destined to go extinct. We overthink shit. One box is clearly the correct answer but I guarentee two-boxers are exclusively white. The negro doesnt spend time pondering, he just goes instantly for the million dollar box. https://youtu.be/Ol18JoeXlVI?si=9wE-e8stByDyrwQh
>>530429273how does the mystery box change its contents? are there two mystery boxes?
>>530429441Watch the video. The explanation is in the first few minutes. Mystery box changes contents based on what a supercomputer or whatever thinks you will choose.
>>530429273I take neither box. I hate the Anti-Christ.
>>530429273The problem only comes down to how accurate you believe the computer is. Because the facts can only be interpreted subjectively the problem only has a subjective answer. If you believe the computer's accuracy is amazing you will pick box 1, and if you believe its middling then you will pick box 2.
>>530429273take 1k and the mystery boxleave 1k richerOnly a jew would need an absurd amount of money to use against other people.
>destined to go extinctAre you a shitskin or just a demoralized retard? Birth rates are collapsing everywhere except for sub saharan africa, where data might as well be fake.
Obviously take both. It's either in the box or it isn't regardless of what chatgpt predicted you'd do
>>530430472with inflation 1M isn't even enough to retire. that isn't jew tier money. with 1k you can eat at mcdonalds a couple of times
>>530429273One box is obviously correct. You either get $1 million or the satisfaction of proving the supercomputer wrong. The $1000 is such a trivial sum that we can disregard it entirely.
It knows I have no faith in its ability to predict. I choose the 1k anyway.
>>530429273Easy, I will shit inside the box with the money :D
>>530429273the boxes are predetermined, but your decision changes their contents?retarded
>>530432169you're jewable>>530430472an anti-jewish field surrounds this anon
>>530431827Because you have that mindset it will never be in the mystery box.You entered the situation with that mindset, and that is why you wont have it. Its the quintessential midwit scenario. Only midwits think taking two boxes is the right choice. Just take the million dollar mystery box and there will be $1million dollars inside.
>>530432711See. Only a midwit whitetard would knowingly go for the lesser ammount. Congrats you just gave up $1million. >>530432580Your decision does not change the contents.The machines prediction of what you will decide does.The reality is your choice was always predetermined, and it is merely a question of if you are an overthinking pussy that walks away with only $1k or someone with confidence to choose the $1million and walk away rewarded.l for it.
>>530432743The contents of the box do not change depending on whether you decide to take one or both
>>530429273>Needs a super computer to explain how people feel about greedy actionsCome on, you're not that stupid right?We assume the second box is zero because we're already getting a reward in the form of $1k, if we chose the first box we expect it to be better because we chose not to take the $1k along with the second boxReally there should be 3 predictions because there's 2 boxes and $1k but whoever made this is probably just tried to copy off someone else
>>530433526>whoever made this probably copied it off of someone else*
>>530430019I take the supercomputer
The question is less about what is the better strat for making more money and more about how much you trust the computer to understand you better than you understand yourselfBy being a 2 box chad you are basically losing out on $1 million to stand on business for the concept of free will
>>530433471but its very accurate, so it predicted you are a retard and one box people get a million dollars.
>>530433977Except it quite litteraly predicted you would do that. It isnt about "free will" either, it is about predictability. I am free to choose whether I am a faggot or not. That does not alter you predicting that OP is a fag.
>>530434594By the time you are standing in front of the boxes deciding whether to take one or both, the closed box is already either filled or not. What you choose at that point does not affect the contents
>>530432580>it's retardedcorrect it's a contrived story about an outcome which can never be achieved.reality is the computer cannot have been better than 50% because it has no prior knowledge of you, so the EU function favoring $100,001,000 x 0.5 is correct.fact.proof: all the people who picked two boxes proves that the computer cannot be accurate 100% of the time.OP is just a sperging hyperbolic gullible fool and this reply has herbs.
>>530434956You are forgetting that the machine isnt randomly choosing, it is using every action and choice you have made in your life to predict your mindset, and has never been wrong before. Not choosing the mystery box is betting you are the first it ever gets wrong, and your prize is you only get $1k. Great. Meanwhile everyone who confidently goes in and chooses the mystery box has gotten their $1million. Congrats, you cucked yourself out of $1million because you tried the midwit approach.
>>530434832>it is about predictability.that is exactly what makes you a fool for believing the story.the story that a predictor can predict without analysis is plain foolish. you're abjectly and irrevocably retarded and easily taken for a ride.
>>530429273>skinner box robo rabbi calls you a bad goy for thinking too much
>>530435199>it is using every action and choice you have made in your lifewow you swallowed the whole cock and balls.
>>530435156It does have prior knowledge of you within the premise. And people picking two boxes in no way proves it was wrong, because it simple predicted they would take two boxes and placed nothing in the mystery box.
>>530435243You are falsely assuming it did not have a prior analysis of you. It did.
>>530435332>within the premiseso you are incapable of thought. got it.
Okay, but what happens when I unplug the faggot computer and piss into it's SUPER cooling system?
>>530435199The machine's prediction of your decision (and therefore its decision whether or not to put the $1,000,000 in the box) and your actual decision are independent events. You cannot retroactively change the former by flipping on the latter
>>530435366>hurr i can just make new claims after the factgood god you're fucking dumb
>>530429772This is the stupidest shit I've ever seen. I bet a jeet made this
>>530435440Correct!That being said the choice you make it not independent from previous choices you have made. You have either always been the type of person to go for a "one box" or a "two box" and your mindset was used to predict the outcome of your choice. If your mindset going in was one of a two-boxer then you are fucked and should just take your two boxes like a good little midwit. Those of us who go in, slam the mystery box button, are always going to walk out with a cool $1 million. Your mindset is causing you to miss out on an opportunity that is in front of you. And the only reason is that you yourself are doubting that you are capable of making that choice in the first place.
The prediction is already made, the box either has 1M or nothing, your decision to take one or two after you're in the room changes nothing about the 1M.Things would be different if you knew about this beforehand and changed your preferences so that computer makes a different prediction, but this is nonsense as the scenario is hypothetical and has no relation to reality.Simple and correct answer is to take both.
>>530435626>the story told me it's true
>>530435580>i bet a jeet made thisworse. veritasium.
>>530429273>1million goy tokensVS>1thousand goy tokens + free mystery boxI'm taking all the boxes nigga get fucked
>>530435626Which returns us to: your decision in the moment does not matter, because it is independent of and a separate thing entirely from whether you possess the characteristic of being a two box or one box taker
>>530436014A decision to take two boxes means you were never a one box Chad to start with. It isnt something you should even think about. The second the premise is given to you the answer of taking one box should become obvious, and thus guaranteed.
Could I take some sort of mystery box insurance in case the supercomputer screws up?How much coverage should you ask in exchange for say 50% of the mystery box?
>>530436108The premise is given to you in the room, and the boxes have been filled before you walked in the room. You don't affect the result by choosing either of two options.And changing your mindset before, because of existence of this hypothetical puzzle that is unrelated to reality in any way is stupid, mr chad.
>OP is using the mystery box of all fucking things to spew anti White antipathy at this hourkill yourself you brown animal
Wow, a "thought" experiment with zero fucking thinking behind it. The video maker and the 10pbtid poster are fucking idiots.
>>530429273Only a nigger would think that this video was about winning a million dollars. That's not the point.
Obviously I take the mystery box, the computer would have predicted that choice was obvious to me and put $1m in the mystery box.
>>530436751Congratulations for having an IQ higher than 100>>530436253You are right. You will never actually change the outcome. The only question is if you are the type to take the million, or not. >>530436256With how many midwits are answering that despite knowing if they choose the $1million it will be there because the superintelligence has never guessed wrong before, I stand by my assertion. The negro will choose the 1 million because it is the bigger number. The high IQ Chink and Jew will realise that the $1million is the correct solution. Midwit whites and Japs will over think the problem and take the lesser option because they are afraid of the statistically irrelevant chance they make way away with nothing.
Think of it it like this: there's a lottery for $1,000,000 with only 100 tickets, and you own 99 of the tickets. The guy who has the other remaining ticket offers to buy 98 of your tickets for $1000. Would you accept his offer?
>>530429273There is no purpose in not taking two boxes. The computer can be right or wrong, it’s irrelevant because there are two boxes already set up, you can have the contents of both so you take both.There are no arguments in which taking only one box is correct.
>>530438259One box arguments from the video>free will isn’t real even though all evidence suggests it is.One boxers, these are your people.
>>530438259Knowing that the computer has guessed right every single time before you, you are willing to bet $999,000 that you will be the one time it is wrong? Just so that you can try to minmax an extra $1k? Why not just be the person that chooses the $1million and bet that the algorithm that has been correct 99.99999% of the time prior will be right again this time?
>>530437872There's no randomness in Op and there is in yours, so you are thinking about a different scenario.
>>530438682You are an absolute fucking retard.There are two boxes with FIXED contents. Your choice has ZERO IMPACT on the contents of the boxes.I bet you are one of those 2/3rds faggots too
Holy fuck the confidence of this moronIt simply doesn't occur to him that the computer would predict he'd take two boxes, and he's so fixated on the One MILLION $ that he takes that conclusion as this starting premise.On his matrix he takes the possibilities (of the mystery box) as $0 and $1m, which are the two possible outcomes. Presumably he thinks this is because the deicision is made and thus can't be altered.But the possibilities are whether the computer is correct about him or not.If it is correct:>picking 1 box gives $1m>picking 2 boxes gives $1000If the computer is wrong:>picking one box gives $1m>picking 2 boxes gives $1m + $1kSo he's betting on a 0.1% gain (the extra $1000) vs a 99.9% loss. For some reason he is assuming that the computer would have predicted he'd choose 1 box, so he thinks he'll fool it by choosing both. HIs logic seems to be that because he didn't know about this test before the computer decided, the computer didn't know about him and made the assumption that he would be among the majority of people who pick only a single box. Seemingly the size of the $1m prize prevented the verbal part of his brain from accurately processing the problem statement.
>>530438870The contents are fixed, but they are not fixed randomly. They are fixed based on your own state of mind. By being a tepid faggot unwilling to commit as a whole, you have willed away the 1 million. Not that it disappeared, it was simply never there for you. For those of us who could clearly see one box was the only choice, the million is a guarentee.
>>530429273I don't really give a shit about a thousand dollars so I'd just take the box and see what happens
>>530438651This does not measure free will, only predictability. You are entirely free to choose, but what you choose is easy for an omnipotent intelligence to guess because you have made similar choices in the past.
>>530432711Nice try kike, one box is the only way to defeat the jew. You either deprive a jew of $1 million, or prove his supercomputer fallible. The $1k is essentially just goyim bait.
>weOP is a pajeet
>>530438815Each scenario (mine and the op's) are actually sets of 4 scenarios, and each set only has two options. The only differences between the options are the probabilities(randomness), which are the same for both the options in the OP's scenario and mine.
no white people are derived from the south asian subcontinent. white people are of the western world, of european tradition and ancestry (aka christendom). white people explored, colonized and uplifted the world's straggling diversity into a modern age. meanwhile pajeets waited centuries for the next superior outsiders to give them purpose and identity."aryans" were an ancient example of white people, and they no longer exist in that form. there is no "indo-european" anything worth mentioning. the modern pajeet is a degraded copy of a copy of an ancient aryan's slave, long abandoned to his own primitive devices. a more recent example of abandoned pajeet slaves, this time far from home, are the gypsies in europe.it would seem that the distasteful business of slavery may have evolved to meet the needs of the slaves themselves. what if specific cultures of humanity are natural and organic slaves, and to deprive them of their god-given role in life can only result in corruptions? what if freedom is only a mind-bending poison to these poor souls, and separates them from instinctive happiness? then what has been done to so many? what cruelty has this been, raising them up to stand as peers and rivals to anyone?
>>530439220Hey retard, this isn’t really happening and no one is giving you money; you are just a peak goy who is willing to delude himself for a chance at fictional winnings.Your choice is not causally connected to the prediction, and is actually explicitly disconnected by giving you additional information after the setup but before the choice.The only relevant information is there are two boxes and you can choose to have the contents from one or both. Choosing both can NEVER result in a reduction in winnnings because the contents are already set.Walking away with a million dollars in such a scenario just means the computer predicted you are an irrational retard.
a checklist to get started tracking down the elusive answer to the burning question: does i be white?>did your ancestors inhabit europe as long as they could remember?>did your ancestors foster traditions of chivalry, the golden rule, stewardship of nature?>did your ancestors explore, conquer and/or build the new world?>did your ancestors contribute any major inventions or scientific advancements since medieval times?>was your ancestral territory ever included in the "realm of christendom"?>do you ever ponder, question or debate the status of your whiteness?please write your answers on toilet paper with the date & time and body fluid samples, and make a pencil sketch of yourself looking at that
>>530439220> The contents are fixed, but they are not fixed One boxing is a mental illness. These niggers probably think photons give a shit when they look at them
>>530439597There's no randomness in OP.
>>530439965The randomness in comes from the fact that the computer is guessing.
>>530439060(after watching more of the video)he considers taht the only 'win' situation is to take both boxes and end up with $1,001,000. He does not consider $1,0000,000 a win because that outcome leaves him feeling sad about the $1000 he left on the table. All the subsequent blather about free will and rationality is just brain candy for midwits. The free will argument is BS because (per the problem statement) the computer's predictions are accurate, not magical; for all you know, it has access to you entire credit and online history to make its decision, or maybe it can just tell from your face, the way gay people can be pretty consistently identified by physiognomy. The answer to the 'why aincha rich' question in the economics paper is that we are rarely presented with piles of guaranteed free money where you are asked only to gamble on the size of the pile and given very favorable odds.Ultimately this guy's mentality is limited by his obsession with maximizing the amount of money he leaves the room with.
>>530440190I re-read that again, and you're right, the phrasing makes your interpretation correct, it has randomness.Still, unlike the lotto, the random event in OP happened before you have a choice, and in your unrelated problem the random event happens after you make a choice.
>>530429273I don't understand the question. If I know in advance what makes the computer will take away the $1 million, then I just take the $1 million instead. So do I know this information, or not?
>>530429273Depends entirely on your risk assessment. If the super computer is truly that unlikely to make a flaw then yes one box is the right answer.But if you're risk averse, or distrustful you could always take both an ensure you have at least a thousand.I'd still go one though.
>>530433642smart - rip the memory out and sell those 50 sticks of memory for $900 apiece.
>>530440276It's not really relevant at which stage the randomness becomes a factor. The argument of the 2 boxer in the video is that 1 box isn't better because your choice can't affect the probability, but even if the randomness comes after your choice, your choice still isn't going to affect its probability. The point isn't that your choice affects anything, it's that choosing the option with the higher probability of you getting the million means your chances of getting the million are higher.
>>530429273i get another trolley to kill the other people on the other track.
>>530440767I find the man tying these people to tracks and execute him.
>>530440735There are 4 outcomes in OP's problem.- computer placed 1M, you took one box- computer placed 0, you took one box- computer placed 1M, you took two boxes- computer placed 0, you took two boxesYour choice is between first and second pair of outcomes. Suppose the probability of computer placing 1M is p.Choosing first pair, your expected winnings are 1M * pChoosing second pair, your expected winnings are 1M * p + 1k * (1-p)Choosing first pair does not maximize anything. The probability p is not affected by the choice you make in the room.
>>530440900i just get him to tie more people to the tracks an get me more trolleys.
>>530441003Correction: in second pair it's>1M * p + 1k
>>530441003You are using an oversimplified equation that does not respect the additional information you are given.It is similar to the gameshow three door problem, where switching doors is always the better choice because the host revealing what is behind the other door gives you additional information that makes switching better. The fact that the intelligence has predicted your choice with perfect accuracy means that what you choose should be what it guessed, and therefore you should choose one box. The worst case in this scenario is you are out $1k. The worst case in your line of logic is you are out $999k. If what you choose doesnt matter, then just choose the one box anyway. Taking two boxes makes no sense. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>>530441003You're not grouping the outcomes correctly. You've grouped them so that the choices match instead of so the probabilities of the outcomes match. They should be grouped like this:Very high probability>computer placed 1M, you took one box>computer placed 0, you took two boxesVery low probability>computer placed 0, you took one box>computer placed 1M, you took two boxes
>>530441308Your reasoning is based on the assumption that your choice in the room can affect what the machine has picked before you went into the room, and that's wrong, and there's nothing to talk about until you admit it is wrong. This has nothing to do with Monty hall problem where switching simply reverses probabilities.>>530441390I grouped them by the choice you have. We are discussing your choice so that's what I grouped them by. You don't have control over the outcome of a random event that happened before you can make the choice.
>>530429273Toss a coin
>>530441500>You don't have control over the outcome of a random eventExactly. You're choice can't affect the probability of the outcome, this makes it illogical to group the outcomes by choice. It's logical to group the outcomes by probability because the probabilities are known. The probabilities of the options are fixed and you pick the option with the better probability.
>>530441958We are discussing your choice. If you want to arrive at the answer, you have to group outcomes by the options of your choice. You can reason about whatever you want and use whatever groupings you want in process, but at the end, there must be breakdown of each option of the choice and their outcomes. Show me that, and then we can discuss it.
>>530441500The point isnt that your choice in the room influences the prediction.The point is that if it is capable of predicting to any degree of accuracy then you should make the choice that is most in your favor when it is correct (one box). Some people cannot make this choice and take two boxes and the intelligence predicts this and gives them nothing in the mystery box. Your reasoning is based on the assumption the computer stopped its predicting based on right up until you enter the room, when in reality it also predicted your thought pattern when you were in the room too. And so if you are capable and willing to make the one choice box, you should always make it. Because it likley knew you were that type of person. The problem is a meta one. We aren't actually in this hypothetical scenario. But if even here you can not convince yourself you would snap choose the one box, then you were probably always a two box person and will never get the 1 million. Whereas the rest of us get the 1 million. Its a mindset. Seize the opportunities in front of you and cast aside doubt and hesitation.
>>530429273Just date a fucking weeb
>>530442118I already said everything I had to say to you. See my previous post.
>>530429273buy an ad, nigger.Your decision does not change past. Whtever the nigger computer thinks of you you are always better to take both boxes.
>>530442109We're discussing both choices and outcomes. You're making the assumption that for one choice to be better than the other, it has to affect the probability of the outcome, but there's no basis for this assumption. We both agree that your choice doesn't affect the outcome. This means that the probabilities of the outcomes must be fixed. These fixed probabilities are predetermined based on the accuracy of the computer, not your choice, so you should make your choice based on the accuracy of the computer if you want the best chance of winning the million.
>>530442919*We both agree that your choice doesn't affect the probability of the outcome.
>>530442919So show me what winnings you expect depending on probability p for each of two options you have.
>>530443315You're arbitrarily grouping the choices together and then trying to work out the probability from there. You will never arrive at a correct answer this way. The probability is not based on choice because, like we've already agreed, your choice has no affect on the probabilities of the outcomes.
>>530435918>veritasiumLol this retard deleted the random "ICE bad" virtue signaling disclaimer at the start of his recent video about actual ice.
>>530443634If you do not give a breakdown by choice your answer is useful for solving the problem.
>>530443697It's not that your choice is irrelevant. I think there's a subtlety that you're not getting here. You can choose a more probable option, but your choice doesn't make that option more probable.
>>530429273>verislopiumfuck off kike
>>530429273the supercomputer cant change whats in the box. it was setup before you walked in. taking 1k and the box is the obvious right answer you stupid niggers
>>530443770I simply ask you to list expected winnings depending on p as the probability of computer placing the money the way I did in >>530441003 and demonstrate why picking one box is the better option for maximizing your winnings.> Choosing one box, your expected winnings are <...>> Choosing two boxes, your expected winnings are <...>Do this and we can talk. If you don't do this, don't speak to me about how you think picking one box is better.
>>530429772That's impossible.
this is just the prisoner's dilemma. since the super computer can predict what I will do and I know that cooperation is the better long term strategy I will trust skynet and only take the mystery box.
>>530443928>the better option for maximizing your winnings.This would be relevant if the extra you could potentially get from the mystery box was much closer to the guaranteed $1000 that you get from picking 2 boxes. If it was only another $1000 in the mystery box instead of $1,000,000 then this argument would make sense. I think I understand 2 boxers now. They're just missing a entire step in the logic.
>>530444243When you are ready to have this discussion, do list your expected winnings as I asked.
>>530429772So it's rigged, thus intentionally affecting the outcome making the experiment pointless. This is the opposite of statistical science.
>>530444458It would also make sense if you were going to get this box offer every day for 1000 days.
>>530444504When you are ready to have this discussion, do list your expected winnings as I asked.
>>530429273This makes no sense
>>530429273Perhaps if you (and countless other faggots resembling you) could stop playing gay videos you might find a woman, and eventually reproduce.Did your gay video win you money?It made some Indian money when you clicked on that faggotry, that's certain.
I rape the computer
