How prediction markets create harmful outcomes: a case study
Coll
- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 1 Posts
people without disposable income are now excluded
The article does say/link:
I’ve previously talked about how it may not always be ethical to require people to bet on their beliefs, and talked about how the interests of rich people could bias certain prediction markets
As for
The bullshit artist prevention also doesnt work
In the footnote it does say:
This doesn’t work for very longterm bets, and it also wouldn’t convince everyone, since conspiracy theorists still exist. Still, I expect it to be helpful on average.
Although there’s likely still an overestimation of how much it would help
get em while they’re hot!
1 April 2024
(also baller move to publish it on april fools)
Well naive bayesianism, as practiced by the rationalists. Bayesianism itself can be reformed to get rid of most its problems, though I’ve yet to see a good solution for the absent-minded driver problem.
This is another example of the dangers of wealth inequality. A lot of EAs tried to start a youtube channel (e.g.), but the only one that could get funded was this one, the one promoting bitcoins and charter cities. Now this is the largest EA channel, attracting more of those types and signalling clearly that if you want to succeed in EA you gotta please the capitalist funders.
The walled marketplace of ideas: a statistical critique of SSC book reviews
I read the article, not a single mention of things like the research on stereotype threat in chess.
I wish rationalists would crack open a sociology book at some point in their lives. They’re so interested in social phenomena, but while Less Wrong has a tag for psychology (with 287 posts), history (245 posts), and economics (462 posts), they seem unwilling to look at sociology for explanations, with it not even having a tag on LW.
Bob Jacobs on Tracing Woodgrains
> the best-researched article I know of on gender differences in chess So I read this article and occasionally checked the sources and while it's not a bad article by any stretch, the scientific backing is not as strong as they imply. For example they write: > the sexes differ in their -preferences- for competition. As both Kasparov and Repková have intuited, men are simply -more competitive- With the words "preferences" and "more competitive" being hyperlinks to their source. This implies (especially in the context) a "nature" explanation, but the source doesn't show that. And that's another thing, it's one study. Of course you can link to the same study twice, but it feels a bit icky to do so this close together about the same claim. A link to a study implies you have evidence for your claim, and if your claim has two links a couple words apart a reader will naturally assume you have two studies, which is a much stronger reason to believe someone. I think this is therefore a bit misleading. I'm also missing some social explanations that an academic/leftwing article would surely have mentioned. Take for example "stereotype threat", the idea that stereotypes change how people perform. There is a semi-famous study about this in chess: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.440 The female players in the experiment were misled. They always played against men, but sometimes the researchers would say they were playing against women. When they believed they were playing against a woman their performance would improve *even with the exact same opponent* (e.g. they would play multiple games against the same man, and they would score better against him when they believed he was a woman). Performance was reduced by 50% when they believed the opponent was a man *and* they were reminded of the stereotype. To my academic/leftwing brain, this seems like a pretty glaring omission.
How do you find these things? How do you read these things? I’m starting to worry about your health David; such a continuous stream of highly concentrated horseshit can’t be good for you.
They saw Marx’s criticism that capitalists were akin to vampires, sucking the metaphorical blood out of the poor, and thought to themselves: he’s right, we should take their literal blood too.