4 ms·

> One way to find out would be to offer a bet. I have had a lot of success with this approach when people are trying to feign ignorance or muddy the waters. P

> One way to find out would be to offer a bet. I have had a lot of success with this approach when people are trying to feign ignorance or muddy the waters. People often know the right answer and just don't want to cop to it. I'll say team A has all the best players and they are clearly going to win. Well this stat isn't the whole picture, anything could happen, that player is pretty good too... Ok if I gave you $100 to bet, which team would you put it on?

pydry 5y ago
How would you bet that "the election wasnt stolen" though? For a bet to work youd need some sort of authority everybody agreed upon as an arbiter of objective reality.
- haroldp 5y ago
  It wouldn't be an appropriate tactic for that sort of argument.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  Right the bet would be that a court-case will find the election was stolen. We do have some trust in courts. There are kangaroo courts but only in corrupt countries. We do need to trust in some authority. It is another bet, do you believe that scientists are deliberately trying to mislead you? That is possible and it is also possible that scientist are wrong by mistake. But how much would you bet that scientists are wrong? Point is we trust some authorities more than some others.
wruza 5y ago
On the best odds. E.g. if A win gives 1.2x and B win gives 3x, it’s B indeed.
- necovek 5y ago
  Please don't bet your own money :) If A win gives 1.2x, and B win gives 3x, the betting house probably has the probability of A winning something like 90% of the time, and B winning 10% of the time. They want sufficient people to bet on either so that in the full picture, they'd be at net positive whatever happens. That's also why they adjust the winning odds as the bets come in (they don't care about winning big, just winning consistently). However, for an individual bet, you're more likely to keep your money if you go with the 1.2x choice.
necovek 5y ago
I hate it when people offer to bet on something none of us has enough information on, or where there is a "high" probability (>10%, which is high for betting purposes) of any one thing being true. Sure, you could still "silence" me with that because I am not going to bet my $100 on "showing you I am right", but I'd happily take your $100 and put them on a bunch of things people resort to "betting" on to get out of the discussion. I admit that my general knowledge is mostly in the "more likely", and as long as I am aware of that, that means that I am not willing to bet on it. So what this "betting" approach gives you is to get out of the argument from risk-averse people, without proving anything. Don't ever take it as "I am right", because you have most likely failed to convince them of anything. It's akin to saying "you are right" without meaning it to get out of the discussion. (I would do and I did bet with friends, where the bet was usually for an expensive lunch or something, but since I'd be willing to pay that lunch regardless and I find it amusing even if I am made fun of for "being wrong" by my friends, I wouldn't consider this actual betting :)
- avar 5y ago
  It's also an interesting form of a regressive tax in the form of a confirmation bias in selecting richer debate partners. Maybe the GP is just more well-off than their interlocutor, who might not make rent this month if they'd lose a $100 bet they're 99% sure they'd win, whereas the GP is only 90% sure, but would find losing $100 a minor inconvenience.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    Right we would need a "progressive bet"
- haroldp 5y ago
  I think this misses the mark in a few ways. There's no risk to you. I'm providing the imaginary betting money. You can't lose, you can only win. When people raise objections or complications or uncertainty because they are trying not to agree with you, then this may help get to the heart of matter. I think X. There are many details and complicating factors. If I gave you $100 to bet on X or Y, which would you bet it on? ... > I'd be willing to pay that lunch regardless and I find it amusing even if I am made fun of for "being wrong" by my friends Delightful. It brings to mind the Seinfeld where someone bets Elaine a dinner that Dustin Hoffman was in Star Wars as a way to go on a date without having to ask. Or perhaps Stephen Hawking's bet against black holes. If he won his life's work would have been wasted, but he'd get a subscription to True Detective, or something close to that.

pydry 5y ago

How would you bet that "the election wasnt stolen" though? For a bet to work youd need some sort of authority everybody agreed upon as an arbiter of objective reality.

haroldp 5y ago
It wouldn't be an appropriate tactic for that sort of argument.
galaxyLogic 5y ago
Right the bet would be that a court-case will find the election was stolen. We do have some trust in courts. There are kangaroo courts but only in corrupt countries. We do need to trust in some authority. It is another bet, do you believe that scientists are deliberately trying to mislead you? That is possible and it is also possible that scientist are wrong by mistake. But how much would you bet that scientists are wrong? Point is we trust some authorities more than some others.

wruza 5y ago

On the best odds. E.g. if A win gives 1.2x and B win gives 3x, it’s B indeed.

necovek 5y ago
Please don't bet your own money :) If A win gives 1.2x, and B win gives 3x, the betting house probably has the probability of A winning something like 90% of the time, and B winning 10% of the time. They want sufficient people to bet on either so that in the full picture, they'd be at net positive whatever happens. That's also why they adjust the winning odds as the bets come in (they don't care about winning big, just winning consistently). However, for an individual bet, you're more likely to keep your money if you go with the 1.2x choice.

necovek 5y ago

I hate it when people offer to bet on something none of us has enough information on, or where there is a "high" probability (>10%, which is high for betting purposes) of any one thing being true. Sure, you could still "silence" me with that because I am not going to bet my $100 on "showing you I am right", but I'd happily take your $100 and put them on a bunch of things people resort to "betting" on to get out of the discussion. I admit that my general knowledge is mostly in the "more likely", and as long as I am aware of that, that means that I am not willing to bet on it. So what this "betting" approach gives you is to get out of the argument from risk-averse people, without proving anything. Don't ever take it as "I am right", because you have most likely failed to convince them of anything. It's akin to saying "you are right" without meaning it to get out of the discussion. (I would do and I did bet with friends, where the bet was usually for an expensive lunch or something, but since I'd be willing to pay that lunch regardless and I find it amusing even if I am made fun of for "being wrong" by my friends, I wouldn't consider this actual betting :)

avar 5y ago
It's also an interesting form of a regressive tax in the form of a confirmation bias in selecting richer debate partners. Maybe the GP is just more well-off than their interlocutor, who might not make rent this month if they'd lose a $100 bet they're 99% sure they'd win, whereas the GP is only 90% sure, but would find losing $100 a minor inconvenience.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  Right we would need a "progressive bet"
haroldp 5y ago
I think this misses the mark in a few ways. There's no risk to you. I'm providing the imaginary betting money. You can't lose, you can only win. When people raise objections or complications or uncertainty because they are trying not to agree with you, then this may help get to the heart of matter. I think X. There are many details and complicating factors. If I gave you $100 to bet on X or Y, which would you bet it on? ... > I'd be willing to pay that lunch regardless and I find it amusing even if I am made fun of for "being wrong" by my friends Delightful. It brings to mind the Seinfeld where someone bets Elaine a dinner that Dustin Hoffman was in Star Wars as a way to go on a date without having to ask. Or perhaps Stephen Hawking's bet against black holes. If he won his life's work would have been wasted, but he'd get a subscription to True Detective, or something close to that.