1.Seems kind of inaccurate to not put in Matt’s tweet particularly if you’re gonna call it “objective sounding”.
Matt himself calls says “seriously but not literally”. So he agrees with you, I think.
2.Regarding fees on conditional markets, I don’t know.
3.
all but a very few markets are pure popularity contests, dominated by those who don’t mind locking up their mana for a month for a guaranteed 1% loss.
I don’t know that this is as big a problem as it seems. A popularity contest where it costs something to vote is a better kind than we usually see. Overall I agree that conditional markets aren’t to be taken too seriously. But I think the tone of this is probably too negative to this audience. This one went fine.
4.
Out of epistemic cooperativeness as well as annoyance, I spent small amounts of mana on the markets where it was cheap to reset implausible odds closer to Harris’ overall odds of victory.
Thanks. I did the same. Overall I thought the markets seemed to say pretty sensible things.
Thanks—I didn’t recall the content of Yglesias’ tweet, and I’d noped out of sorting through his long feed. I suspect Yglesias didn’t understand why the numbers were weird, though, and people who read his tweet were even less likely to get it. And most significantly, he tries to draw a conclusion from a spurious fact!
Allowing explicitly conditional markets with a different fee structure (ideally, all fees refunded on the counterfactual markets) could be an interesting public service on Manifold’s part.
The only part of my tone that worries me in retrospect is that I should have done more to indicate that you personally were trying to do a good thing, and I’m criticizing the deference to conditional markets rather than criticizing your actions. I’ll see if I can edit the post to improve on that axis.
I think we still differ on that. Even though the numbers for the main contenders were just a few points apart, there was massive jockeying to put certain candidates at the top end of that range, because relative position is what viewers noticed.
I made that market. Some thoughts
1.Seems kind of inaccurate to not put in Matt’s tweet particularly if you’re gonna call it “objective sounding”.
Matt himself calls says “seriously but not literally”. So he agrees with you, I think.
2.Regarding fees on conditional markets, I don’t know.
3.
I don’t know that this is as big a problem as it seems. A popularity contest where it costs something to vote is a better kind than we usually see. Overall I agree that conditional markets aren’t to be taken too seriously. But I think the tone of this is probably too negative to this audience. This one went fine.
4.
Thanks. I did the same. Overall I thought the markets seemed to say pretty sensible things.
Thanks—I didn’t recall the content of Yglesias’ tweet, and I’d noped out of sorting through his long feed. I suspect Yglesias didn’t understand why the numbers were weird, though, and people who read his tweet were even less likely to get it. And most significantly, he tries to draw a conclusion from a spurious fact!
Allowing explicitly conditional markets with a different fee structure (ideally, all fees refunded on the counterfactual markets) could be an interesting public service on Manifold’s part.
The only part of my tone that worries me in retrospect is that I should have done more to indicate that you personally were trying to do a good thing, and I’m criticizing the deference to conditional markets rather than criticizing your actions. I’ll see if I can edit the post to improve on that axis.
I think we still differ on that. Even though the numbers for the main contenders were just a few points apart, there was massive jockeying to put certain candidates at the top end of that range, because relative position is what viewers noticed.
I think the post moved me in your direction, so I think it was fine.