You offered 50⁄50 odds for an event that johnswentworth gave 29% likelihood (which was the maximum of anybody giving). It’s quite obvious why nobody takes you up on 50⁄50 odds when nobody has a higher then 29% likelihood of believing that the event happens.
I don’t know if you’re purposely being antagonistic, but I’ll respond because I try to assume that people are arguing in good faith.
You predict nothing of that sort in the linked comment. The antibody test being negative is a distinct event from immunization.
The first linked comment I said that “there’s a 1-2% chance here that you’ve effectively immunized yourself from COVID.”. In the second linked comment, I clarified that an anti-body test would be the the predictor of immunization.
I picked 50% because of the comment:
My rough guess is that there’s a 75% probability of effectively full immunity
Regardless of people accepting or rejecting my bet, my prediction came true. For a community supposedly dedicated to rationalism and prediction markets, a −8 downvote on my comment seems a lot like groupthink, trying to push down dissenters.
Too bad that the LW community falls victim to obvious snake oil and herd mentality. I wish it weren’t so.
Given that people actually had vastly different predictions for full immunity and antibodies detecting and commercial tests detecting antibodies this just illustrates that you don’t understand the topic well enough to distinguish the different claims to offer a bet that’s worth for anybody to take given their stated beliefs.
It’s clear that you’re arguing in bad faith when you link a comment that was made 5 days after my own as some sort of bizarre justification that people didn’t take my bet. Regardless, my prediction is still true.
“You don’t understand the topic” is the weakest counter argument you could make without any proof.
That’s what I get for trying to engage in debates assuming good-faith, right? Disappointing.
My prediction that the anti-body test would come back negative: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/niQ3heWwF6SydhS7R/making-vaccine?commentId=hgwzegWcLEYrZMmZj
No one took me up on a bet: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/niQ3heWwF6SydhS7R/making-vaccine?commentId=h8mqNdAypszWYQ7dh.
You predict nothing of that sort in the linked comment. The antibody test being negative is a distinct event from immunization.
You offered 50⁄50 odds for an event that johnswentworth gave 29% likelihood (which was the maximum of anybody giving). It’s quite obvious why nobody takes you up on 50⁄50 odds when nobody has a higher then 29% likelihood of believing that the event happens.
I don’t know if you’re purposely being antagonistic, but I’ll respond because I try to assume that people are arguing in good faith.
The first linked comment I said that “there’s a 1-2% chance here that you’ve effectively immunized yourself from COVID.”. In the second linked comment, I clarified that an anti-body test would be the the predictor of immunization.
I picked 50% because of the comment:
Regardless of people accepting or rejecting my bet, my prediction came true. For a community supposedly dedicated to rationalism and prediction markets, a −8 downvote on my comment seems a lot like groupthink, trying to push down dissenters.
Too bad that the LW community falls victim to obvious snake oil and herd mentality. I wish it weren’t so.
Given that people actually had vastly different predictions for full immunity and antibodies detecting and commercial tests detecting antibodies this just illustrates that you don’t understand the topic well enough to distinguish the different claims to offer a bet that’s worth for anybody to take given their stated beliefs.
It’s clear that you’re arguing in bad faith when you link a comment that was made 5 days after my own as some sort of bizarre justification that people didn’t take my bet. Regardless, my prediction is still true.
“You don’t understand the topic” is the weakest counter argument you could make without any proof.
That’s what I get for trying to engage in debates assuming good-faith, right? Disappointing.