I’m just enjoying saying “ban haranguing” out loud.
The problem I was emphasising, which may or may not be secondary here, is that many people aren’t sophisticated bettors (i.e. aren’t very fluent in the mechanics around odds-making), and don’t have a lot of spare cash. So without some sort of honest broker to mediate, you get well-off blowhards throwing money around on unfair bets, steamrolling others who might have a good point, but don’t have enough disposable income or oddsmaking sophistication to support it. And the more the strategy works for the blowhards, the bolder they get, throwing out unfair bets on every trivial matter.
Like I’m well aware of the math of probabilities, but I’m not fluent in betting or odds-slaying. On that occasion, I don’t know how I had the presence of mind that day to suggest 1/7 instead of even-money, but by doing so, I definitely learned something about betting in general, and in particular betting with that specific person. If that’s to be a general practice on this board, there needs to be a mechanism to guide and support the less gambling-minded debaters.
I’m hearing this…
Thank you. Whenever anyone brings up anything like a bet, I tune out. Often I just leave the thread.
Boring.
Boy do I ever disagree, for this reason: people suck at probability.
If you say, “Trump’s going to win the primary,” that’s much clearer to me than if you say, “Trump has a 90% chance of winning the primary, according to my intestinal flora.”
Someone who gives odds without a rationale is just bullshitting, as far as I can tell, and the number is there in a pitiful attempt to persuade me of something I wouldn’t otherwise be persuaded of. If they have a rationale, it’s the rationale more than the odds that are interesting.
Attaching a willingness to bet to those made-up odds? Not remotely persuasive. It tells me about the poster and their sense of confidence, earned or otherwise; it tells me nothing about the strength of their claims.
Surely, though, you can see the difference between “Trump has a 90% chance of winning the primary” vs. “Trump has a 50% chance at winning the primary.”
The point isn’t to turn everyone into a bookie. It’s to put a rough number to a statement of confidence. Even if I think the 90% number is bullshit, if they’re willing to stand by that number, I have a pretty good idea of their high level of confidence. If it’s 50% instead, then they aren’t saying much of anything.
Of course! I think it’s important for the conversation to understand the level of confidence the other poster has. Otherwise, there is the risk that the posters will waste time simply talking past each other. It’s entirely possible for two posters to agree on their confidence that something will happen, but due to differing descriptions not realize it. Or perhaps one or both don’t want to admit that their described level of confidence differs from their actual level of confidence.
It can also be useful to compare a person’s stated confidence against prediction markets like PredictIt or Metaculus. If someone’s confidence is way out of line compared to the markets, then that’s a curious point worth investigating. Maybe they do have some insight that isn’t being taken into account. Or maybe they just have an emotional stake in the outcome. Just the kind of thing that’s worth fleshing out in a thread.
When I see somebody solicit a bet in an argument, I interpret it as a breakdown in communication at best, and often a form of bullying.
If me saying, “I’m very confident that the flumbus will flop tomorrow” isn’t good enough for you, that’s not a problem that can be solved by wagering money. Either I’ve failed to convince you that I’m arguing in good faith or you have no interest in carrying on a discussion and want to short circuit it by using the bet as a proxy for making an honest contribution to the dialogue.
Both are bad outcomes.
If you want to put some “skin” in the game, declare that you’ll bump the thread if proved wrong in the future and eat your crow. No need to drag someone else into a bet just because the courage of your convictions is coin operated.
I mentioned it before but I think it bears mentioning it again.
I am willing to bet most here have encountered that poster who just keeps dancing around the issue and/or finding rare edge cases or simply refuses to acknowledge that 2+2=4. (I think I have been guilty of it here.)
The person offering a bet is not bullying then. They are asking the other person to put their money where their mouth is.
I get how betting can be abused and is not a good idea on this forum but I do not think it is a simple matter of bullying.
Yup, that’s how i read it, too.
If that’s how you see it, your insisting on a bet is a form of insult.
I’ve always considered, “wanna’ bet?!”, sophomoric at best, but that’s just my personal take on it. What makes this site special to me is the high level of debate and imparted knowledge by people with a lot of horsepower under the hood. I am an intelligent person with a pretty high level of education, but I learn things here all the time.
As mentioned, one can always PM someone if they want to make a bet challenge, or they can go to any number of sites that center on betting/gambling.
How much?
Sure. It’s frustrating. But the bet seems like a very poor way to handle this admittedly frustrating situation.
If 2+2=4 has an obvious way to adjudicate its veracity, just use that adjudication method, and then be satisfied with yourself. Don’t be the “SOMEONE’S WRONG ON THE INTERNET!” guy. (Meanwhile I’m trying to get better at taking my own advice).
If 2+2=4 doesn’t have an obvious way to adjudicate its veracity, how on earth would a bet help? All it’ll do is lock both sides even deeper into their positions.
I’ve been mulling a post on probability for a couple of weeks. I’m not sure I’ll be able to pull it together. Briefly:
Probability is tricky, even if you have a college-level course under your belt. It’s still not fully understood.1 That points us in two directions. Firstly, having a policy of never betting is entirely reasonable - you could simply be saying that the typical person offering you a bet (probably) understands betting mechanics better than you do. Understanding yourself is an important step towards wisdom. (This suggests another gambit for those being offered a bet: “I’m not familiar with Vegas odds making, though I’ve studied probability at a 6th grade/college/graduate/intergalactic level. Perhaps you could justify your belief to me in, you-know, words. Like a scientist would at a meeting. Or is that too hard?”)
Second, we’re here to fight ignorance. If this board shies away from thinking about probability at a broad and deep and practical level, that’s a win for ignorance. Especially in the context of GD and Politics.
1 I’m not kidding. Brad DeLong: "I would have been profoundly depressed if back when I was 19 somebody had told me that: “You think you are depressed now because you do not understand ‘Knightian Uncertainty’. But I tell you that when you are 54 you will still not understand ‘Knightian Uncertainty’. In fact, when you are 54, you will not only not understand it, you will be so confused that you will be uncertain about whether ‘Knightian Uncertainty’ is or is not a sensible concept.”
Guido was wondering when would be a good time to stop on by and…“chat wit’ youse”, as he so charmingly put it.
The Quatloos have been deposited into the account of anyone betting against me. Thank you for the reminder.
I recently read his Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century. It’s not perfect - what 600 page summary of a century is? - but I’d recommend it. I especially liked it because he admits in it that he’s needed to rethink his certainties from the Clinton era because the world took another shift since then. Almost all long-term predictions - which are bets whether or not money is involved - fall into this trap.
But I came back to this thread because of an article in the morning paper concerning the increasingly vicious trolling football players are getting from fantasy leaguers. Money is the cause there and in the now-ubiquitous legalized betting. Threats are growing uglier and black players get the worst of it.
Like many addictions, gambling starts small and social and considered totally acceptable. When it spirals into madness people just turn their heads and mutter about how they personally would never do it. That’s a long-term prediction that’s often wrong.
Don’t put your money where your mouth is. Leave your money in your pocket. Everybody wins.
Added to my TBR - thanks!
Agreed: that book is highly recommended. Now in paperback! Those wanting an introduction to DeLong’s perspective can read this blog post: it links his next project with the long 20th century discussed in Slouching Towards Utopia.
I’ve had 1870 on my mind for over a year now.