4 ms·

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 pu

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.
- necovek 5y ago
  People are willing to bet on anything with "imaginary money", so I don't see how is that a useful tool?
  - haroldp 5y ago
    It frames the question in a way that forces them to make a best-choice rather than endlessly suggesting complications. It's useful because it often works, in practice.

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.

necovek 5y ago
People are willing to bet on anything with "imaginary money", so I don't see how is that a useful tool?
- haroldp 5y ago
  It frames the question in a way that forces them to make a best-choice rather than endlessly suggesting complications. It's useful because it often works, in practice.