4 ms·

'Belief' is a squirrely concept. How much of this is them professing to believe it vs actually believing it? I have a strong suspicion that people answer these

'Belief' is a squirrely concept. How much of this is them professing to believe it vs actually believing it? I have a strong suspicion that people answer these sorts of questions by mapping "what kind of person I am" to "what would a person of that kind in good standing answer". But this is different than acting in accordance with the belief when there are material stakes. Suppose we had a prediction market on these beliefs (ironically, I suppose it would have to be adjudicated by God himself), would 40% of Americans really bet significant sums on creationism? Again, assuming all they stood to gain or lose was material and none of their friends and family need known what stance they took?

mattnewton 4y ago
It depends on how the betting markets were organized. People have spent a great deal more money on sillier social signaling with smaller stakes, so if your bets were public, yes, I think people would continue to make bets that are in accordance with what they think their tribe wants, and would count on the bet-adjudicators to side with their tribe's pressure should they stand to lose.
NavinF 4y ago
Related: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and... > On the same poll, 13% of Americans claimed to believe Barack Obama was the Anti-Christ. […] Some pollsters are starting to consider these sorts of things symptomatic of what they term symbolic belief, which seems to be kind of what the Less Wrong sequences call Professing and Cheering or Belief As Attire. Basically, people are being emotivists rather than realists about belief. “Obama is the Anti-Christ” is another way of just saying “Boo Obama!”, rather than expressing some sort of proposition about the world.
- p_j_w 4y ago
  I'm related to the sort of people who are likely to respond that they think Obama is the anti-christ in a poll and I'm here to tell you that, for a good portion of them, it's a genuinely held belief. If you spend a significant amount of time with these sorts of people, these sorts of benign explanations don't really hold any sway. Is it possible I've been exposed to a biased slice of America that's not representative? Sure, but there's literally zero evidence that the benign view Scott Alexander is putting forth here is true. It's nothing more than a hope.

mattnewton 4y ago

It depends on how the betting markets were organized. People have spent a great deal more money on sillier social signaling with smaller stakes, so if your bets were public, yes, I think people would continue to make bets that are in accordance with what they think their tribe wants, and would count on the bet-adjudicators to side with their tribe's pressure should they stand to lose.

NavinF 4y ago

Related: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and... > On the same poll, 13% of Americans claimed to believe Barack Obama was the Anti-Christ. […] Some pollsters are starting to consider these sorts of things symptomatic of what they term symbolic belief, which seems to be kind of what the Less Wrong sequences call Professing and Cheering or Belief As Attire. Basically, people are being emotivists rather than realists about belief. “Obama is the Anti-Christ” is another way of just saying “Boo Obama!”, rather than expressing some sort of proposition about the world.

p_j_w 4y ago
I'm related to the sort of people who are likely to respond that they think Obama is the anti-christ in a poll and I'm here to tell you that, for a good portion of them, it's a genuinely held belief. If you spend a significant amount of time with these sorts of people, these sorts of benign explanations don't really hold any sway. Is it possible I've been exposed to a biased slice of America that's not representative? Sure, but there's literally zero evidence that the benign view Scott Alexander is putting forth here is true. It's nothing more than a hope.