[extropy-chat] Superrationality

[Lee Corbin]

Hal writes

> It's interesting that although people are generally split on Newcomb's
> paradox, substantial numbers going either way, very few people accept
> evidentiary reasoning in the case of superrationality.  I suspect that
> the trouble, ironically, is that people are just not thinking clearly
> in evaluating superrational reasoning.  They fail to appreciate the
> strength of the argument that rational people will do the same thing.
> We see this clearly when people accept that superrationality makes sense
> up to a point, conclude that it means the other player will cooperate,
> and then decide to defect.
> 
> This failure is not too surprising, since economic reasoning relies on
> a certain degree of abstraction and reductionism in terms of evaluating
> what rational actors will do...

I have one question. Suppose that today Hofstadter suddenly a time machine,
and decides to visit the year 1983. He then finds himself in a sealed room,
with his 1983 version in an adjacent sealed room. All each know is that
they're in a one-shot PD with each other, and each knows the year from which
the other comes.

Our Doug, (Doug 2006) consults the payoff matrix.  It says

     (5,5) | (0,10)
     (10,0)| (1,1)

It is clear what the 1983 Doug will do. What move should our
Doug play in order to maximize his payoff?

Lee