Imagine that everyone, on their 21st birthday, is put into Newcombs Paradox. The Predictor predicts whether a person will choose only box B or both A and B the day before their birthday. (For this question, imagine this is Newcombs Paradox without Backwards Causation.) Studies have shown that people who, sometime before the prediction is made concerning them, get a tattoo on their stomach saying One-Boxers Rule and then choose to take both boxes in Newcombs Paradox find a million dollars in Box B 100% of the time. However, only 10% of those who dont get the tattoo and choose to take both boxes find a million dollars in Box B. No one understands why there is this connection between getting the tattoo and a million dollars being in Box B. You have firmly decided you will choose both boxes when its your turn, but you are undecided about getting the tattoo, which you dont really want. To represent the negative value getting the tattoo has for you, subtract $500 from whatever you win in Newcombs Paradox if you get the tattoo. Is it rational, according to the restricted versions of MEU and/or the Dominance Principle, for you to get the tattoo before the Predictor makes their prediction? If you need further information to answer this question, explain what additional information you need and why you need it.