Can you imagine Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher or even Sarah Palin doing that? Offering to bet a lot of money on the issue in the middle of a debate is hyper-masculine, aggressive, and low class. It is not all that different from asking the guy if he wants to step outside.
Prediction markets where the other side of the bet is a faceless horde are completely different. There is no humiliation inflicted.
That would seem totally in character for Sarah Palin to me (and even more so for Ann Coulter), but then I’m French, so my mental model of Palin may be a bit off.
I don’t see it as low class, and I consider “solving” disagreements by betting better than appeals to authority or agreeing to disagree. However it would seem a bit unseemly for someone already in a position of authority (like Thatcher or Merkel), I’m not totally sure why … maybe because we want to know what they do, not what they think and say, and once they’re in power they shouldn’t have anything to prove any more. Offering to bet is a way to prove your thinking is correct, which is important for pundits and candidates, but not for those in power.
I don’t think it’s low class. It’s a rhetorical way to challenge someone to put up or shut up.
It would have been smarter to bet $1. That makes it clear it’s challenging the point. The dollar is a token of the challenge.
And I think Thatcher would have done it, and she would have done it right with a single pound. As far as hyper aggressive, she had bigger stones than all our current candidates combined. Watch some youtubes of her at Question Time.
That is exactly right. Challenging someone to put up or shut up is a confrontation and an escalation. That is how fistfights begin. The challenge is construed as being to their honor.
A well-written analysis of the dynamic is given by a lawyer, William Ian Miller, in Humiliation. Among the other interesting tales he tells is how a medieval Icelandic noble family feud began with a too extravagant gift.
Challenging someone to put up or shut up is a confrontation and an escalation. That is how fistfights begin. The challenge is construed as being to their honor.
Does the fact that it’s an escalation mean it’s bad? Some bad things (fistfights) are escalations, but that doesn’t magically make escalation bad.
Instead of analogies to other bad things, we should analyze what makes things bad.
A norm of responding to challenges to honor by (threats of) violence would mostly result in social status depending on capacity to inflict “acceptable” forms of violence (with a probable side effect of a lot of violence). Since that is not particularly correlated with “social usefulness” (except in case of war with all neighbours), that sounds pretty sucky to society compared to other ways of attributing status.
A norm of responding to disagreements of fact by bets (“put up or shut up”), however, will make people less likely to publicly say provably untrue things, and gives an advantage to those who know what’s true and what isn’t—seems like a social good!
I’m reminded of a story my grad school advisor told me about professor from Taiwan, I think, who while participating in a technical discussion in the US, was hit by a fit of gleeful delirium as he ranted “I disagree! I disagree! I disagree!”
As my advisor told it, the guy was just giddy with being able publicly disagree and take on an idea—to directly and immediately confront an idea he disagreed with, without some face saving 40 minute kabuki dance to get the point across.
There’s a divide on whether directly confronting ideas is “rude” and “insulting”, and that divide occurs within societies as well. I think confronting bad ideas is a public good, but in this case, like so many others, I’m aware that I’m in the minority on the issue, even within the supposedly pro free speech, open minded, soap box for everybody US. As a practical, everyday matter, most people think it is insulting, aggressive, or rude for someone to question their ideas, or even express a contradictory viewpoint, and that feeling of grievance grows particularly when they perceive themselves to be in the majority.
Can you imagine Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher or even Sarah Palin doing that? Offering to bet a lot of money on the issue in the middle of a debate is hyper-masculine, aggressive, and low class. It is not all that different from asking the guy if he wants to step outside.
Prediction markets where the other side of the bet is a faceless horde are completely different. There is no humiliation inflicted.
That would seem totally in character for Sarah Palin to me (and even more so for Ann Coulter), but then I’m French, so my mental model of Palin may be a bit off.
I don’t see it as low class, and I consider “solving” disagreements by betting better than appeals to authority or agreeing to disagree. However it would seem a bit unseemly for someone already in a position of authority (like Thatcher or Merkel), I’m not totally sure why … maybe because we want to know what they do, not what they think and say, and once they’re in power they shouldn’t have anything to prove any more. Offering to bet is a way to prove your thinking is correct, which is important for pundits and candidates, but not for those in power.
I don’t think it’s low class. It’s a rhetorical way to challenge someone to put up or shut up.
It would have been smarter to bet $1. That makes it clear it’s challenging the point. The dollar is a token of the challenge.
And I think Thatcher would have done it, and she would have done it right with a single pound. As far as hyper aggressive, she had bigger stones than all our current candidates combined. Watch some youtubes of her at Question Time.
That is exactly right. Challenging someone to put up or shut up is a confrontation and an escalation. That is how fistfights begin. The challenge is construed as being to their honor.
A well-written analysis of the dynamic is given by a lawyer, William Ian Miller, in Humiliation. Among the other interesting tales he tells is how a medieval Icelandic noble family feud began with a too extravagant gift.
Does the fact that it’s an escalation mean it’s bad? Some bad things (fistfights) are escalations, but that doesn’t magically make escalation bad.
Instead of analogies to other bad things, we should analyze what makes things bad.
A norm of responding to challenges to honor by (threats of) violence would mostly result in social status depending on capacity to inflict “acceptable” forms of violence (with a probable side effect of a lot of violence). Since that is not particularly correlated with “social usefulness” (except in case of war with all neighbours), that sounds pretty sucky to society compared to other ways of attributing status.
A norm of responding to disagreements of fact by bets (“put up or shut up”), however, will make people less likely to publicly say provably untrue things, and gives an advantage to those who know what’s true and what isn’t—seems like a social good!
Very well said.
I’m reminded of a story my grad school advisor told me about professor from Taiwan, I think, who while participating in a technical discussion in the US, was hit by a fit of gleeful delirium as he ranted “I disagree! I disagree! I disagree!”
As my advisor told it, the guy was just giddy with being able publicly disagree and take on an idea—to directly and immediately confront an idea he disagreed with, without some face saving 40 minute kabuki dance to get the point across.
There’s a divide on whether directly confronting ideas is “rude” and “insulting”, and that divide occurs within societies as well. I think confronting bad ideas is a public good, but in this case, like so many others, I’m aware that I’m in the minority on the issue, even within the supposedly pro free speech, open minded, soap box for everybody US. As a practical, everyday matter, most people think it is insulting, aggressive, or rude for someone to question their ideas, or even express a contradictory viewpoint, and that feeling of grievance grows particularly when they perceive themselves to be in the majority.