# Money Talks, Bullshit Walks **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307 "2013-06-06T17:35:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/61 "2013-06-09T02:58:27Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > One word answer: yes. > > Yes, they should. Because strong opinions about the future often have more grounding in emotion than in insight into objective reality. Because in practice those who claim not to be betting as a matter of principle can’t often articulate that principle very well. Because the amounts involved can often be small: I usually offer (probabilistic) bets in the range of about a dollar or even less: again the process is about being careful and setting odds. Alternatively, you can gamble larger amounts where a gift to charity is at stake. > > It’s not enough to say, “I don’t bet as a matter of principle.” You have to give a reason why. The underlying point of the exercise after all is advance a particular form of humility. Predicting the future is hard (and random!) and strong opinions are often in the province of the blowhard. Discouraging certain strong opinions, ones that are insufficiently formulated, is a good thing. And betting has zero to do with that. I don’t need to show off how little $100 means to me, like some posters. And ultimately betting shows absolutely nothing unless you do it in high numbers. Nothing meaningful can be determined by some internet bigshot dumping some skrilla on SCOTUS decision X. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/62 "2013-06-09T02:59:17Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Loss aversion is a well-known facet of human psychology; you are probably at least a little familiar with it. > [@RickJay](#): > > As HMS Irruncible points out, they would likely be unwilling to make predictions at all for the simple reason of risk aversion. Loss aversion isn’t the same as risk aversion. A rational risk averse investor won’t care too much about a $1 bet or any other bet whose outcome is uncorrelated with the value of their portfolio and a slim fraction of the same. So they will bet. A loss averse person won’t bet, because the psychic penalty of losing a dollar is far greater than the benefits (monetary and psychic) they receive from winning. Loss aversion is thought to be exploitable by rational players or those familiar with framing. [Loss aversion - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion) (2nd paragraph is misleading, IMO) [Risk aversion - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion) (Oh, and I admit my memory of this stuff is more than a little fuzzy.) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/63 "2013-06-09T03:02:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And betting has zero to do with that. > > I don’t need to show off how little $100 means to me, like some posters. And ultimately betting shows absolutely nothing unless you do it in high numbers. Nothing meaningful can be determined by some internet bigshot dumping some skrilla on SCOTUS decision X. If you believe strongly that X will occur, and I say the opposite, then you should be willing to give me (say) 4:1 odds. I win, you give me a dollar. I lose, I give you a quarter. Oh you don’t feel _that_ strongly say? Well, we can discuss odds then, but if you are angling at 50:50, then methinks you’re really not that confident. Personally, I feel uncomfortable betting large sums outside of an intrade context. And small sums aren’t worth bothering with online. But I have betted small sums IRL and drawn up contracts for the same. It’s a growth opportunity: focused minds benefit both players. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/64 "2013-06-09T03:37:49Z")
**Bricker:** I have engaged you in four wagers of a political nature, each for the sum of $100. I have won three of those wagers. What should I conclude from these outcomes? For the record, I have found **Bricker** to be impeccably honest in our wagers, and would not hesitate to engage in another, should the opportunity arise. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/65 "2013-06-09T11:41:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Loss aversion isn’t the same as risk aversion. A rational risk averse investor won’t care too much about a $1 bet or any other bet whose outcome is uncorrelated with the value of their portfolio and a slim fraction of the same. So they will bet. True… when we are talking about how the prospect of loss affects the valuation of prospective gains, we’ve crossed over properly into the subject of risk aversion. I conflated the terminology a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/66 "2013-06-09T15:46:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > **Bricker:** > > I have engaged you in four wagers of a political nature, each for the sum of $100. I have won three of those wagers. What should I conclude from these outcomes? > > For the record, I have found **Bricker** to be impeccably honest in our wagers, and would not hesitate to engage in another, should the opportunity arise. (1) I was honestly confident about the outcome I predicted. (2) I was wrong. (You’re not counting the one wager, I hope, where the problem was imprecise wording on my part? I honored it but that particular wager wasn’t me being wrong, so much as me failing to accurately define terms…) But yes: **Fear Itself** and I disagree on many things, but his opinions and predictions strike me as being quite honestly held, and not subject to revision if financial loss were a consequence of being wrong…illustrating my point. No bullshitter, he. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/67 "2013-06-09T16:41:48Z")
I would like to test your hypothesis from the OP: > [@](#): > > The experiment’s results basically reveal that when money is on the line, the bullshit factor decreases dramatically: **people were far more likely to provide the correct factual answer when they stood to gain a monetary reward.** Now, our wagers provide a very small sample size which probably isn’t conclusive. But you have made a large number of wagers here, and your record could be revealing. How many wagers have you engaged in, and how many have you won? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/68 "2013-06-09T22:12:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (You’re not counting the one wager, I hope, where the problem was imprecise wording on my part? I honored it but that particular wager wasn’t me being wrong, so much as me failing to accurately define terms…) One of the benefits of wagering is it forces you to operationalize your underlying beliefs. Another is learning that your understanding of the issue isn’t as accurate or precise that you thought it was. Admittedly lawyers may be familiar with this tendency, but laymen often are not. So again, betting is a useful exercise. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Now, our wagers provide a very small sample size which probably isn’t conclusive. But you have made a large number of wagers here, and your record could be revealing. How many wagers have you engaged in, and how many have you won? Could be. Or not. Scoring probabilistic forecasts is a field unto itself and last fall nobody with solid familiarity with this sub-discipline materialized on this board. But consider the coin flip. Say there’s an hypothesis that it’s a two headed coin. If you get 4 heads in a row, there’s a greater than 6% odds that this would occur purely due to chance with a two headed coin. 6%\>5%, one typical threshold. And in Bricker’s case, we might be discussing debates between 20% subjective probabilities and, say, 75% subjective probabilities. It might take more that a handful of bets to fairly measure the validity of person’s worldview. Or not: I haven’t thought through this, though I know that some in the world have. I’d _like_ to say that we could use his bets to evaluate Bricker’s underlying paradigmantic view of the world, but I’m not convinced there’s sufficient data. To me though, it’s the process of betting --from negotiation to payoff-- that is helpful. For one thing losing a bet can force you to think more carefully about probability and uncertainty. Or on occasion enter madness, but one would hope that tendency can be overcome. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/69 "2013-06-09T22:53:53Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If you believe strongly that X will occur, and I say the opposite, then you should be willing to give me (say) 4:1 odds. Unfortunately, \*should \*isn’t something you get to decide on. > [@](#): > > I win, you give me a dollar. I lose, I give you a quarter. Oh you don’t feel _that_ strongly say? Well, we can discuss odds then, but if you are angling at 50:50, then methinks you’re really not that confident. Betting on a complex situation where you don’t have knowledge of the variables because you’re confident, is a stupid thing to do. > [@](#): > > Personally, I feel uncomfortable betting large sums outside of an intrade context. And small sums aren’t worth bothering with online. But I have betted small sums IRL and drawn up contracts for the same. It’s a growth opportunity: focused minds benefit both players. My mind is focused enough to see that compulsive betting is stupid and self-destructive. Betting me about a fact that I know is one thing. Betting on (for instance) an election when a third of the country is utterly misinformed and delusional, is another. Bet if you like, but I’d say it’s an example of stealth-bragging (like Romney did) or just empty bravado. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/70 "2013-06-09T23:47:52Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Yes, they should. Because strong opinions about the future often have more grounding in emotion than in insight into objective reality. Greed and the thrill of gambling are also emotions. The person sitting at a slot machine pulling the handle over and over isn’t doing so out of cold blooded rationality. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If you believe strongly that X will occur, and I say the opposite, then you should be willing to give me (say) 4:1 odds. I win, you give me a dollar. I lose, I give you a quarter. Oh you don’t feel _that_ strongly say? Well, we can discuss odds then, but if you are angling at 50:50, then methinks you’re really not that confident. Or they just hate betting for any reason, like me. Or they don’t trust the person to pay. Or they despise the person and don’t want to risk doing anything that would give them money. Or they’re one of the people who considers gambling immoral. Or they’re a recovering gambling addict who doesn’t want to get sucked in again. Or all sorts of other reasons. > [@Bricker](#): > > In previous threads, I’ve offered bets as to various propositions, and always been amused at the number of refusals – why, I wondered, would you pass up a chance to make some money if you’re so sure of your prediction? For one thing, in my case I hate gambling for any reason and haven’t gambled real money\* in my entire life. It would never even occur to me to take your bet no matter how certain I was of winning, because _I don’t take bets._ Ever. \*The closest I’ve come is gambling minigames in video games and at least there I can same scum until I win. Nor is is real money. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/71 "2013-06-10T03:45:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Unfortunately, \*should \*isn’t something you get to decide on. Sort of. If you prefer, I have good reason to doubt your display of certainty under the above circumstances. > [@](#): > > Betting on a complex situation where you don’t have knowledge of the variables because you’re confident, is a stupid thing to do. Yes! And if you grasp the complexity of the situation and your lack of knowledge of the same, then your display of confidence is blather. > [@](#): > > My mind is focused enough to see that compulsive betting is stupid and self-destructive. Who said anything about compulsive? These bets typically take a while to negotiate. > [@](#): > > Betting me about a fact that I know is one thing. Betting on (for instance) an election when a third of the country is utterly misinformed and delusional, is another. Bet if you like, but I’d say it’s an example of stealth-bragging (like Romney did) or just empty bravado. Turning down a bet is perfectly reasonable. Honorable, even. Making strong claims is reasonable. But when the stakes are sufficiently low insisting on both at the same time indicates that you are all hot air. Let’s not forget that the betting exercise can _clarify_. Last year I said to Bricker something like, “You seem pretty confident, Brick. How about giving me 3:1 odds?” He replied, “I am 50:50 confident. I am not 3:1 confident”. That’s an entirely reasonable response. Another might be: "I think it’s 75% likely. But I’m loss averse, to a point, so I’ll turn down 50:50. How about _you_ give _me_ odds? In that case, I could note that 75% isn’t all that confident really – it’s just probable. Again. Clarifying. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Greed and the thrill of gambling are also emotions. The person sitting at a slot machine pulling the handle over and over isn’t doing so out of cold blooded rationality. Sure. > [@](#): > > It would never even occur to me to take your bet no matter how certain I was of winning, because I don’t take bets. Ever. That’s an odd principle. Sure, gambling addiction is a real issue. But when the stakes are low, the gratification of payoff is postponed and the negotiation extended, this seems to me to be something other than slots. And “Certainty” of winning can be an emotion or it can be an operational position. A low stakes wager can distinguish between the two. Incidentally, I’m personally opposed to gambling in a casino, because it feels like a ripoff to me. I’ve never done so, but I’ve on occasion walked past numerous tables and machines to take advantage of discounted food. And while I haven’t ruled out betting with a fellow poster online, I doubt whether a bet would be offered that I consider sensible, given the bother of payment, etc. I guess I could imagine doing something at [longbets.com](http://longbets.com) (for charity). But by way of full disclosure, I have played poker with friends. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/72 "2013-06-10T03:51:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But yes: **Fear Itself** and I disagree on many things, but his opinions and predictions strike me as being quite honestly held, and not subject to revision if financial loss were a consequence of being wrong…illustrating my point. No bullshitter, he. As a matter of etiquette and opinion, I think the claimer is permitted one round of clarification. We can all make wild claims in a moment of exuberance and it should be permissible to recast them into something more thoughtful when asked. And if you’re serious about this sort of bet, lengthy multiple round negotiations aid the fight against ignorance. I’ll again plug [longbets.com](http://longbets.com) , where the public _justification_ for the bet is a big part of the process. That gives you a basis to revisit the original reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2013, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/73 "2013-06-10T04:07:23Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Then why did you make a post that amounts to “I make bets on things! Look at this study! It says money makes people think better! It means I’m better than all you guys! Tell me I’m right!” > [@Bricker](#): > > Why did YOU focus on two sentences out of twenty presented in the OP? Not going to answer for **BigT** , but I will note that your personal contribution to the OP consisted of FOUR, not TWENTY sentences (plus whatever snipping you did to bring your quoted material down to fair-use standards). I’ll further note that the sentences **BigT** “focuses” on were the most salient of the four. (see below) The OP: > [@Bricker](#): > > A tidbit from **Wonkblog** ’s [Dylan Matthews: If you pay them money, partisans will tell you the truth](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/03/if-you-pay-them-money-partisans-will-tell-you-the-truth/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein): > > The experiment’s results basically reveal that when money is on the line, the bullshit factor decreases dramatically: people were far more likely to provide the correct factual answer when they stood to gain a monetary reward. > > In previous threads, I’ve offered bets as to various propositions, and always been amused at the number of refusals – why, I wondered, would you pass up a chance to make some money if you’re so sure of your prediction? > > This research suggests that at least some of the refusals were motivated by the same factor: as long as their confident declarations cost them nothing, they could be sustained. > [@Bricker](#): > > One of us is trying to make this about me instead of the proposition, yes. I initially had the thought to ask “what exactly is the debate? Is it _discuss the implications of the study’s conclusions_, or is it _discuss how the study dovetails with **Bricker** ’s experience in SDMB debates_”? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/74 "2013-06-10T16:10:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I would like to test your hypothesis from the OP:Now, our wagers provide a very small sample size which probably isn’t conclusive. But you have made a large number of wagers here, and your record could be revealing. How many wagers have you engaged in, and how many have you won? To be fair to **Bricker** , you should in some way account for the number of honest _offers to wager_ he’s made. Counting the record of actual wagers is misleading because poor predictions are more likely to be wagered against. If I were to offer even money bets that 1. The sun will rise tomorrow 2. I will have eggs for breakfast 3. A 9.7 earthquake will strike California I bet I’d get takers on the third, and I’d almost certainly lose. But my record for correct predictions would probably still be 2/3. Obviously, those first two predictions were facile, so including them at equal value is also misleading. Just goes to show that it’s hard to actually calculate this in the real world. In Nate Silver’s example of the rational Bayesian world, _every_ claim is probabilistic in nature, and is open for a bet (and every player is happy to make that bet). ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/75 "2013-06-10T16:18:06Z")
Apologies for two posts in a row, but they’re on different sub-threads and I didn’t want to glom them all together. > [@Fubaya](#): > > Why would it matter if anyone bet on these things? > [@BigT](#): > > Betting is a frivolous activity that, if you have enough free money to do it with, something is wrong with your monetary priorities. As I said above: Accurate predictions have value. Advance knowledge of the outcome of a horse race is pretty frivolous. The outcome of the race has no impact on the rest of the world outside the narrow confines of the horseracing world and the betting markets on it. Advance knowledge of who will be the President, or how the Court will decide is not frivolous. The outcome has real and potentially major impacts on the world. We can’t see the future. But we can see, in retrospect, who has successfully predicted similar events in the past, and who is certain enough of their current prediction to wager on it. That’s useful. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307/76 "2013-06-10T16:34:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I would like to test your hypothesis from the OP:Now, our wagers provide a very small sample size which probably isn’t conclusive. But you have made a large number of wagers here, and your record could be revealing. How many wagers have you engaged in, and how many have you won? As best as I can tell, I’ve made 14 bets here and won nine. I’ve OFFERED many more which have been declined. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/money-talks-bullshit-walks/660307.md?page=3)