4 ms·

> When you see a reliable public betting challenge with real stakes, you can be very confident the claim is true at a probability that is significantly above 50

> When you see a reliable public betting challenge with real stakes, you can be very confident the claim is true at a probability that is significantly above 50% (assuming 1:1 odds are being offered). This makes the assumption that the overall stakes are even. What if Alex Jones puts up 100K that boiled frog eyes cure COVID? He could be absurdly wrong, but the additional credibility offered by this may let him sell a million dollars more of boiled frog eyes. The problem is, there is going to be virtually no research on whether boiled frog eyes are a cure for covid, so it is next to impossible to challenge the claim and made all the more difficult by the potential for human error and the risk involved noted in the challenge.

stevenwoo 6y ago
The assumption the writer makes about correlation of odds and probability is nonsensical - betting houses change the odds regularly so they make money based on essentially random bettors current intuition.
- weare138 6y ago
  Exactly, like under the 'WIV lab procedures' section it states: Probabilistic Estimates: Labs with lax security and procedures are conservatively estimated as 2x more likely to produce a lab escape. However, since the reports are not very reliable, this is reduced to 1.5x. There's no explanation or methodology presented as to how they derive these probabilities based on articles they found in the news and most of their assertions rely on this inexplicable methodology. Another example of just how nonsensical their conclusions are, under the sections 'WIV disassociation' and 'Chinese response' they again rely on news articles to conclude China's response merits suspicion and therefor must be covering up the source of COVID. This assertion is just illogical and fatally flawed. While China may have motivation to cover it up if that were the case, scientists in other countries who have obviously spent a great deal of time examining COVID and concluded it's zoonotic wouldn't have motivation to cover it up. Yet this obvious logical deduction is not factored into their conclusions or even merits a mention.
  - GlenTheMachine 6y ago
    The nice thing about Bayesian analysis is that you have to make your priors explicit. That’s what this is, a prior. It doesn’t have to have a derivation; it can just be a guess. The important thing is that you’re writing your guess down so everyone can see it. You can then also do a sensitivity analysis to figure out how much your conclusions change if you modify your priors. So if you, the reader, think the priors are wrong, then you can change them and re-do the analysis. I think the most interesting thing about this analysis is exactly that: we can look at the priors and come up with a principled conclusion. We can then argue about whether the priors are right.
    - casion 6y ago
      The major issue here is that the sensitization of priors can be a marketing ploy. It's very easy to "make guesses" that present your conclusion, throw in a paltry amount of money, then make bank off the publicity. This possibility poisons the well for the entire process. If they can make money off this even if they are completely off-base, then it's not rational to build up the trust necessary in their process to engage with their model.
      - GlenTheMachine 6y ago
        It’s not clear to me how they make money other than by winning their bets. What am I missing?
        casion 6y ago
        This is a company that is selling a product, and they're receiving a GREAT deal of publicity about their utilization of a methodology core to their offerings.
        GlenTheMachine 6y ago
        What’s the product?
baby 6y ago
It’s about prediction markets, but one better does not create a prediction market.
eznzt 6y ago
Is this a joke on his 'I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay!' famous sentence? Because it's true: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Well, "to" would imply it was intentional, which I don't believe is the case here. :)
  - eznzt 6y ago
    I have corrected the quote.
- katmannthree 6y ago
  Atrazine causing feminization in frogs is an undisputed fact, but the statement as given ("they put chemicals in the water TO turn frogs gay") is absolutely not. Atrazine is used because it's a cheap and effective herbicide, frog feminization is a side effect which doesn't factor into decisions about its use.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    Ah yes, technically the chemicals are being put in the water and are turning the frogs gay but you see, they only intended to put the chemicals in the water and didn't specifically intend to turn the frogs gay.
    - katmannthree 6y ago
      Atrazine isn't intentionally put into water, it ending up in water reservoirs is a second order effect of its primary use as an herbicide. Its subsequent tertiary effects on the ecosystem are far removed from the people who applied it, who were just looking for an easy way to kill weeds.
    - petermcneeley 6y ago

stevenwoo 6y ago

The assumption the writer makes about correlation of odds and probability is nonsensical - betting houses change the odds regularly so they make money based on essentially random bettors current intuition.

weare138 6y ago
Exactly, like under the 'WIV lab procedures' section it states: Probabilistic Estimates: Labs with lax security and procedures are conservatively estimated as 2x more likely to produce a lab escape. However, since the reports are not very reliable, this is reduced to 1.5x. There's no explanation or methodology presented as to how they derive these probabilities based on articles they found in the news and most of their assertions rely on this inexplicable methodology. Another example of just how nonsensical their conclusions are, under the sections 'WIV disassociation' and 'Chinese response' they again rely on news articles to conclude China's response merits suspicion and therefor must be covering up the source of COVID. This assertion is just illogical and fatally flawed. While China may have motivation to cover it up if that were the case, scientists in other countries who have obviously spent a great deal of time examining COVID and concluded it's zoonotic wouldn't have motivation to cover it up. Yet this obvious logical deduction is not factored into their conclusions or even merits a mention.
- GlenTheMachine 6y ago
  The nice thing about Bayesian analysis is that you have to make your priors explicit. That’s what this is, a prior. It doesn’t have to have a derivation; it can just be a guess. The important thing is that you’re writing your guess down so everyone can see it. You can then also do a sensitivity analysis to figure out how much your conclusions change if you modify your priors. So if you, the reader, think the priors are wrong, then you can change them and re-do the analysis. I think the most interesting thing about this analysis is exactly that: we can look at the priors and come up with a principled conclusion. We can then argue about whether the priors are right.
  - casion 6y ago
    The major issue here is that the sensitization of priors can be a marketing ploy. It's very easy to "make guesses" that present your conclusion, throw in a paltry amount of money, then make bank off the publicity. This possibility poisons the well for the entire process. If they can make money off this even if they are completely off-base, then it's not rational to build up the trust necessary in their process to engage with their model.
    - GlenTheMachine 6y ago
      It’s not clear to me how they make money other than by winning their bets. What am I missing?
      - casion 6y ago
        This is a company that is selling a product, and they're receiving a GREAT deal of publicity about their utilization of a methodology core to their offerings.
        GlenTheMachine 6y ago
        What’s the product?

baby 6y ago

It’s about prediction markets, but one better does not create a prediction market.

eznzt 6y ago

Is this a joke on his 'I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay!' famous sentence? Because it's true: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Well, "to" would imply it was intentional, which I don't believe is the case here. :)
- eznzt 6y ago
  I have corrected the quote.
katmannthree 6y ago
Atrazine causing feminization in frogs is an undisputed fact, but the statement as given ("they put chemicals in the water TO turn frogs gay") is absolutely not. Atrazine is used because it's a cheap and effective herbicide, frog feminization is a side effect which doesn't factor into decisions about its use.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  Ah yes, technically the chemicals are being put in the water and are turning the frogs gay but you see, they only intended to put the chemicals in the water and didn't specifically intend to turn the frogs gay.
  - katmannthree 6y ago
    Atrazine isn't intentionally put into water, it ending up in water reservoirs is a second order effect of its primary use as an herbicide. Its subsequent tertiary effects on the ecosystem are far removed from the people who applied it, who were just looking for an easy way to kill weeds.
  - petermcneeley 6y ago