Adam Gurri

On Bets and Bullshit

Written by

Adam Gurri

in

Speaking of conversations, the economics blogosphere has recently erupted with a discussion that has been ongoing, at a much slower pace, for years. The subject is the effect of making a bet upon the kinds of claims one is likely to make. One side finds it inherently desirable to wager on your beliefs because it makes you put your money where your mouth is, discourages vagueness, and so on. The other side thinks the impact of this bet is overstated and perhaps even negative.

For my own purposes I’d like to collect the pieces of the conversation that I have managed to witness in one place.

Here we go:

What I love about this is how wonderful an illustration it is of the nature of conversations like these, which have existed long before blogs and the Internet and computers. None of the participants treat the subject as though it is occurring in a vacuum; all make reference to the larger conversation, making it easier for new spectators and participants to join in when encountering just one piece of it.

Comments

9 responses to “On Bets and Bullshit”

  1. Bets Argue | Symposium Magazine

    […] This is how I feel about folks like Tyler Cowen who say they feel little obligation to make or accept offers to bet in support of beliefs they express, nor to think less of others who similarly refuse to bet on beliefs they express. (Adam Gurri links to ten posts on the subject here.) […]

    Reply
  2. Some Points on Betting | Eli Dourado

    […] See Adam Gurri for a review of where we are so far. […]

    Reply
  3. Overcoming Bias : Bets Argue

    […] This is how I feel about folks like Tyler Cowen who say they feel little obligation to make or accept offers to bet in support of beliefs they express, nor to think less of others who similarly refuse to bet on beliefs they express. (Adam Gurri links to ten posts on the subject here.) […]

    Reply
  4. F.E. Guerra-Pujol (Enrique) Avatar
    F.E. Guerra-Pujol (Enrique)

    Maybe both sides in this fight are right, depending on whether we look at bets at a “micro” or “macro” level. For example, if we take a large number of bets on a given topic or question at a macro level, then Robin is right: all these bets in the aggregate tell us something, and this is why prediction markets are so awesome … but at the same time, each individual bet on a micro scale may not necessarily reveal all that much information, for the reasons Noah and others have given (and, I would add, because individuals might make inconsistent bets over time) … so Tyler is right when we look at bets on a micro or individual scale …

    Reply
    1. AdamGurri Avatar
      AdamGurri

      Could be. I have some thoughts on this as well, but I’m saving them for this Monday’s piece at the Umlaut 🙂 (which is actually what motivated me to collect all the links here and storify that conversation).

      Reply
  5. Friday links: synthesizing data on “synthesis” in ecology, new blog on women in science, and more | Dynamic Ecology

    […] to bet one’s beliefs. For those interested in dipping into this discussion, here’s a compilation of the recent […]

    Reply
  6. How Betting Can Improve the Social Sciences | The Ümlaut

    […] The conversation over how useful betting is for improving the quality of discourse has gone from a slow burn to a rapid exchange in the last week. It has focused mostly around Alex Tabarrok’s claim that “a bet is a tax on bullshit”; though Noah Smith reframed the discussion to focus primarily on the question of whether a bet revealed a person’s true beliefs. To my mind, it matters not at all what people’s true beliefs are. It seems to me that betting would be good, primarily, for removing some of the bullshit from punditry, and for improving the quality of the social sciences. […]

    Reply
  7. Todd Kuipers Avatar
    Todd Kuipers

    Thanks much for aggregating. I’d been clipping them all as they came up, and I’ve obviously missed a few.

    Reply
    1. AdamGurri Avatar
      AdamGurri

      No problem. It helps that after a certain point they started linking here as a point of reference.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts