> The "rational market hypothesis" has nothing to do with the rationality of individual actors. It sucks that the rationality community started calling themsel

> The "rational market hypothesis" has nothing to do with the rationality of individual actors. It sucks that the rationality community started calling themselves that since now people get confused when you talk about the aspirations of empirical skeptic communities trying to act selflessly. Language kind of sucks - even the word selfless doesn't quite capture what I'm trying to say. It is all to imprecise. Which is why.. > I think you're flying on social media knowledge. I generally try to think in terms of game theory - especially the equilibrium considerations. I'm very far from the general consensus about what intelligence and rationality are - for example, I don't believe that pejorative cognitive bias and predictable irrationality exist with the strength that some do. I've found studying the sort of machine learning that is not often used in practice because it is computationally intractable to be a better guide to understanding than the inductive approach most people seem to favor. > This is word salad. In non-cooperative games selfish play produces information hiding. You play a harder to predict policy because it makes you unexploitable. In cooperative games you can play an easy to predict policy, because it makes you predictable, which allows coordination. I think these correspond with Lies and Truth. Fiction and facts and lies and truth don't seem to be the same thing to me. Obviously, Theft corresponds with selfish strategies, the Lies strategy. If this still seems like word salad sit awhile with these questions: if there are three doors two labeled A and one labeled B and two agents have to pick a door without communicating with each other which ought they to pick. Now lets say one agent is trying to kill the other agent and this happens if they pick the same door. Which should they pick? I capitalized the words, not because I didn't know what they mean, but because I have very precise ideas of what I'm trying to talk about. > I don't believe you've ever taken an economics class. I have an intuitive feeling that there is a justification for preventing people from working together so as to better understand things; but your approach isn't it at all. The rationality community which often promotes the use of prediction markets also happens to be champions of effective altruism. Some of it is probably signaling - the best love is quiet since then it came from the right place - but trying to pretend these people are all comparable to thieves seems too far to me. It doesn't give me greater confidence in the strength of your argument that you've abandoned it in favor of character attacks. Someone who strongly believed they were right would be courageous enough to try and explain their position with more depth and clarify the terms. Since it seems to me you want to "win" go with the perverse incentive angle. I've been rolling it around in my mind for a while and while there are aspects to it that seem common to all situations with hidden information I'm definitely not confident enough to disagree with it. You'll get to carry your "victory" over me around as a mark of something. Internet points? I'll even be one of the people who give them to you, because generally when someone asks questions in good faith they rather intended to get answers in good faith. You can try to act like you meant that all along when you implied that the people I was trying to discuss were thieves and I'll be powerless to refute you, because I'm still puzzled by the issues. On the other hand, if you actually have the answers - please share. I'm not claiming knowledge, but ignorance.