Getting a bet right once isn't the same as having a track record, but here's what he says he was thinking: ... Maybe we'll see more "neighbor polls" from now on?
Getting a bet right once isn't the same as having a track record, but here's what he says he was thinking:
The Journal has confirmed that Théo is the trader behind the Polymarket accounts that were systematically purchasing wagers on a Trump victory. Polymarket has corroborated some parts of his story, saying that the individual behind the bets was a French national with extensive trading experience and a financial-services background.
Théo said he placed the Trump bets using his own money, with an eye toward making a big profit, and he had “absolutely no political agenda.” The Journal was unable to determine whether these statements are true. Nor could the Journal rule out links between Théo and any political organization or Trump allies.
...
Théo shared a table of numbers he had compiled based on RealClearPolitics polling averages, showing that Trump had overperformed his swing-state polling numbers in 2020. Given the tight polls in swing states in 2024, Théo reasoned that a similar overperformance by Trump would easily push him into the lead.
Polls failed to account for the “shy Trump voter effect,” Théo said. Either Trump backers were reluctant to tell pollsters that they supported the former president, or they didn’t want to participate in polls, Théo wrote.
To solve this problem, Théo argued that pollsters should use what are known as neighbor polls that ask respondents which candidates they expect their neighbors to support. The idea is that people might not want to reveal their own preferences, but will indirectly reveal them when asked to guess who their neighbors plan to vote for.
Théo cited a handful of publicly released polls conducted in September using the neighbor method alongside the traditional method. These polls showed Harris’s support was several percentage points lower when respondents were asked who their neighbors would vote for, compared with the result that came from directly asking which candidate they supported.
To Théo, this was evidence that pollsters were—once again—underestimating Trump’s support. The data helped convince him to put on his long-shot bet that Trump would win the popular vote. At the time that Théo made those wagers, bettors on Polymarket were assessing the chances of a Trump popular-vote victory at less than 40%.
Maybe we'll see more "neighbor polls" from now on?
Could you please post things like this in the politics category so I can filter it out? Probably the worst thing about Trump winning that will actually affect my day-to-day life is that I won't...
Could you please post things like this in the politics category so I can filter it out?
Probably the worst thing about Trump winning that will actually affect my day-to-day life is that I won't stop hearing and reading about him for the next 4 years or so.
Oops, sorry that's on me. I forgot to add 'politics' to the tags when I edited them. @teaearlgraycold added it though, so it should be being filtered for you now.
Oops, sorry that's on me. I forgot to add 'politics' to the tags when I edited them. @teaearlgraycold added it though, so it should be being filtered for you now.
I wish that was the worst thing about Trump winning. I don't gather you realize how much damage he can do (much more than before) now that he has a supreme court on his side. ANd let's not mention...
I wish that was the worst thing about Trump winning. I don't gather you realize how much damage he can do (much more than before) now that he has a supreme court on his side. ANd let's not mention senate and maybe (haven't checked to see if everything has been called) on his side too. And project 2025 pulling the strings.
I wrote a comment either this morning or yesterday why this will affect even "privledged" people who aren'this direct targets.
I will give you that at this point there is not much we can do about it so I agree with the sentiment of burying my head in the sand. But I think you are really underplaying the worst thing about this when you're whining the worst thing is just hearing about him.
The environment one will... that affects Everyone. And sadly while the US being in line still won't solve everything it would help a lot (and hurt a lot if it isn't). Already trump is appointing...
The environment one will... that affects Everyone. And sadly while the US being in line still won't solve everything it would help a lot (and hurt a lot if it isn't). Already trump is appointing some one who denies that climate change is a thing.
Sure, CDB will probably be a lot less affected, and won't directly be affected. But the environment will affect everyone. Unless he dies before it gets really bad (adn it's already having effects).
Also, if another pandemic happens, the US will be a breeding ground, I promise you (and these days with everything global it can easily slip out to other countries). And they're already talking about how the bird flu is starting to affect mammals and getting worried about if/when it starts doing human to human transmission (one thing they've noticed is mammals like cows and cats are really spreading it around now).
Scott Alexander makes an argument that it's hard to tell whether 50-50 or 60-40 odds for Trump were right in retrospect. Knowing the results of the election doesn't do much to help us distinguish...
Scott Alexander makes an argument that it's hard to tell whether 50-50 or 60-40 odds for Trump were right in retrospect. Knowing the results of the election doesn't do much to help us distinguish between them:
Suppose you have a coin. You think there's a 90% chance it's fair and a 10% chance it’s biased 60/40 heads. Then you flip the coin and comes up heads. What should your new probability be? You would solve this with Bayes’ Theorem; the answer is 88% chance it’s fair, 12% chance it’s biased.
Why didn’t it shift your beliefs more? Didn’t the experiment “vindicate” the bias hypothesis’ claim that it would land on heads more, by in fact landing on heads? Yes, but the fair-coin hypothesis already held that it was pretty likely to land heads, and the biased coin hypothesis didn’t add much to this (60% chance vs. 50%). And since you were previously pretty confident in the fair-coin hypothesis, this unremarkable minor finding only shifts your confidence a tiny amount (2%).
Is this just some sort of pathology of extreme confidence? No. Even if you’d started out ambivalent between the two hypotheses, with equal chance that the coin was fair or biased, a single heads should only shift you to 55-45. You just shouldn’t update much on single dramatic events!
Even if you start out ambivalent between the two hypotheses, and you flip it five times, and you get five heads in a row, you still shouldn’t be very confident! At this point, the probability that it’s a completely fair coin is still ~29%! Why so high? Because it’s implausible that a fair coin would get this many heads, but it’s about equally implausible that a coin biased “only” 60-40 would. Either way, you got a weird amount of luck. The amount of luck necessary to get this this result with a fair coin is only slightly greater than the amount necessary to get it with a biased coin, so overall you still shouldn’t be too sure. It’s just really hard for this paradigm - flipping a coin that could be fair or could be 60-40 - to give you useful evidence.
...
Just before the election, Polymarket and other real-money prediction markets said Trump had a 60% chance of winning. Metaculus and other non-money forecasting sites said he had a 50% chance of winning.
Then Trump won. Should this increase your trust in Polymarket rather than Metaculus? Only by the tiniest of amounts. If you previously thought (like I did) that there was a 90% chance that Metaculus was more accurate, you should update down to 88%.
But this point holds regardless of your previous opinion of Polymarket vs. Metaculus - whether you thought they were both about equal, or Polymarket was better. Whatever your opinion, the election should barely change it.
I think about this in a different way: I'm skeptical that a probability is all that useful a signal for events that happen once, unless it gets pretty extreme. Suppose we have two scenarios:
It will rain on wedding day
It will be sunny on wedding day
Whether it's a 50-50 chance or 60-40 chance, you have to plan for both. It's not until it gets to 90-10 or higher that maybe you can think about not planning much for the unlikely scenario. These probabilities are not that informative, outside of gambling situations where you can make repeated bets.
I agree that polymarket doesn't have any more credibility in this scenario. Honestly, I suspect it's slightly more accurate prediction has more to do with bias in the user base than anything. And...
I agree that polymarket doesn't have any more credibility in this scenario. Honestly, I suspect it's slightly more accurate prediction has more to do with bias in the user base than anything.
And that probability isn't useful in this scenario. All it really applies to is predicting the accuracy of the polls since, for all intents and purposes, the outcome of the election is pre-determined by the voters.
So folks can take his words with the appropriate amount of salt This is my reminder that Scott Alexander expressed white supremacist beliefs including "Human Biodiversity" which is Stormfront's...
So folks can take his words with the appropriate amount of salt
This is my reminder that Scott Alexander expressed white supremacist beliefs including "Human Biodiversity" which is Stormfront's newest attempt to sell racialism.
Based on his reddit comments, I don't think that's particularly changed much.
He's also sexist in a bio-essentialist way. Women aren't interested in tech, biologically. It's not a harassment issue. (It's apparently also not relevant that women were the first computer operators until they were pushed out. It doesn't get mentioned in the essay. )
My thought on Scott Alexander is that he is a psychiatrist. The further he gets from psychiatry, the less people should listen to him. He has a bad habit of speaking far, far from psychiatry. A...
My thought on Scott Alexander is that he is a psychiatrist. The further he gets from psychiatry, the less people should listen to him.
He has a bad habit of speaking far, far from psychiatry. A lot of doctors think they're smarter than they actually are and go down insane rabbit holes.
I read several more of his posts before making this comment, including his commentary on women in tech and on his thoughts on slurs. I'm not sure I'm up for more so we'll see.
I read several more of his posts before making this comment, including his commentary on women in tech and on his thoughts on slurs. I'm not sure I'm up for more so we'll see.
Personally, I appreciated the heads-up. Racism and misogyny are wide-reaching beliefs that can potentially taint quite a lot of other beliefs in subtle and not so subtle ways. I'd rather such...
Personally, I appreciated the heads-up. Racism and misogyny are wide-reaching beliefs that can potentially taint quite a lot of other beliefs in subtle and not so subtle ways. I'd rather such people get over-scrutinized than under.
In that case, you should know that she's posting false accusations. For example, Scott Alexander isn't misogynist and doesn't think women aren't interested in tech. DefinitelyNotAFae sees the...
In that case, you should know that she's posting false accusations. For example, Scott Alexander isn't misogynist and doesn't think women aren't interested in tech. DefinitelyNotAFae sees the world in a very black-and-white way sometimes, and probably misinterpreted something.
I read his post on it, I absolutely came away from it believing him to think that the low numbers of women in tech is not about discrimination and socializing women away from tech from childhood...
I read his post on it, I absolutely came away from it believing him to think that the low numbers of women in tech is not about discrimination and socializing women away from tech from childhood but about "natural" differences in women's interests. Additionally this aligns with his "soft" race science views.
And yes, I'll post when anyone posts his opinions. My opinion can be taken with the appropriate amount of 🧂 too.
The thing is, we were having a conversation about prediction markets, and that's the post I linked to was about. You keep trying to turn it into a broad conversation about what other views Scott...
The thing is, we were having a conversation about prediction markets, and that's the post I linked to was about. You keep trying to turn it into a broad conversation about what other views Scott Alexander may or may not have.
I'm not trying to change the topic. But I'm also not interested in pretending the man doesn't subscribe to white supremacist views. Continue to talk about markets. I think the white supremacy...
I'm not trying to change the topic. But I'm also not interested in pretending the man doesn't subscribe to white supremacist views. Continue to talk about markets. I think the white supremacy thing is inseparable from his body of work and demonstrates flaws in his general reasoning. But you don't have to agree, I'm not trying to convince you. As I said before, I cannot promise not to dislike the people you share or not to talk about why, whether niche Catholic racists or this guy. Please feel free to ignore my replies on the matter.
In today's column, Matt Levine speculates about whether prediction markets will become less regulated, whether they will be more popular, whether insider trading is ethical for a prediction...
In today's column, Matt Levine speculates about whether prediction markets will become less regulated, whether they will be more popular, whether insider trading is ethical for a prediction market, etc. Also:
[M]eanwhile, amusingly, Polymarket might be illegal in France, where Théo is apparently located, oops.
I don’t entirely follow, but here’s an economist on Twitter claiming that the French whale decided that the New York Times poll was wrong based on a math error.
I don’t entirely follow, but here’s an economist on Twitter claiming that the French whale decided that the New York Times poll was wrong based on a math error.
Getting a bet right once isn't the same as having a track record, but here's what he says he was thinking:
...
Maybe we'll see more "neighbor polls" from now on?
Could you please post things like this in the politics category so I can filter it out?
Probably the worst thing about Trump winning that will actually affect my day-to-day life is that I won't stop hearing and reading about him for the next 4 years or so.
Oops, sorry that's on me. I forgot to add 'politics' to the tags when I edited them. @teaearlgraycold added it though, so it should be being filtered for you now.
I wish that was the worst thing about Trump winning. I don't gather you realize how much damage he can do (much more than before) now that he has a supreme court on his side. ANd let's not mention senate and maybe (haven't checked to see if everything has been called) on his side too. And project 2025 pulling the strings.
I wrote a comment either this morning or yesterday why this will affect even "privledged" people who aren'this direct targets.
I will give you that at this point there is not much we can do about it so I agree with the sentiment of burying my head in the sand. But I think you are really underplaying the worst thing about this when you're whining the worst thing is just hearing about him.
Does this still apply if cdb is neither American, Ukrainian, or Taiwanese?
The environment one will... that affects Everyone. And sadly while the US being in line still won't solve everything it would help a lot (and hurt a lot if it isn't). Already trump is appointing some one who denies that climate change is a thing.
Sure, CDB will probably be a lot less affected, and won't directly be affected. But the environment will affect everyone. Unless he dies before it gets really bad (adn it's already having effects).
Also, if another pandemic happens, the US will be a breeding ground, I promise you (and these days with everything global it can easily slip out to other countries). And they're already talking about how the bird flu is starting to affect mammals and getting worried about if/when it starts doing human to human transmission (one thing they've noticed is mammals like cows and cats are really spreading it around now).
Will do. Sorry, I didn't think of that tag.
Thanks!
Scott Alexander makes an argument that it's hard to tell whether 50-50 or 60-40 odds for Trump were right in retrospect. Knowing the results of the election doesn't do much to help us distinguish between them:
Congrats To Polymarket, But I Still Think They Were Mispriced
...
I think about this in a different way: I'm skeptical that a probability is all that useful a signal for events that happen once, unless it gets pretty extreme. Suppose we have two scenarios:
Whether it's a 50-50 chance or 60-40 chance, you have to plan for both. It's not until it gets to 90-10 or higher that maybe you can think about not planning much for the unlikely scenario. These probabilities are not that informative, outside of gambling situations where you can make repeated bets.
I agree that polymarket doesn't have any more credibility in this scenario. Honestly, I suspect it's slightly more accurate prediction has more to do with bias in the user base than anything.
And that probability isn't useful in this scenario. All it really applies to is predicting the accuracy of the polls since, for all intents and purposes, the outcome of the election is pre-determined by the voters.
So folks can take his words with the appropriate amount of salt
This is my reminder that Scott Alexander expressed white supremacist beliefs including "Human Biodiversity" which is Stormfront's newest attempt to sell racialism.
Based on his reddit comments, I don't think that's particularly changed much.
He's also sexist in a bio-essentialist way. Women aren't interested in tech, biologically. It's not a harassment issue. (It's apparently also not relevant that women were the first computer operators until they were pushed out. It doesn't get mentioned in the essay. )
But sexist or not, believing in racist ideology is a big old red flag to me. I will comment this when I notice him quoted as it is relevant to his opinions.
My thought on Scott Alexander is that he is a psychiatrist. The further he gets from psychiatry, the less people should listen to him.
He has a bad habit of speaking far, far from psychiatry. A lot of doctors think they're smarter than they actually are and go down insane rabbit holes.
I haven't read his psychiatric research so I can't speak to it, but I don't like washing his opinions.
If you're interested in seeing the psychiatric stuff I found helpful, here are some links. Don't feel obligated to read them if you don't want.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/13/things-that-sometimes-work-if-you-have-anxiety/
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/07/10/melatonin-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/know-your-amphetamines
I read several more of his posts before making this comment, including his commentary on women in tech and on his thoughts on slurs. I'm not sure I'm up for more so we'll see.
Please don't repost this every time I quote him, particularly on subjects that have nothing to do with that.
Personally, I appreciated the heads-up. Racism and misogyny are wide-reaching beliefs that can potentially taint quite a lot of other beliefs in subtle and not so subtle ways. I'd rather such people get over-scrutinized than under.
In that case, you should know that she's posting false accusations. For example, Scott Alexander isn't misogynist and doesn't think women aren't interested in tech. DefinitelyNotAFae sees the world in a very black-and-white way sometimes, and probably misinterpreted something.
I read his post on it, I absolutely came away from it believing him to think that the low numbers of women in tech is not about discrimination and socializing women away from tech from childhood but about "natural" differences in women's interests. Additionally this aligns with his "soft" race science views.
And yes, I'll post when anyone posts his opinions. My opinion can be taken with the appropriate amount of 🧂 too.
The thing is, we were having a conversation about prediction markets, and that's the post I linked to was about. You keep trying to turn it into a broad conversation about what other views Scott Alexander may or may not have.
I'm not trying to change the topic. But I'm also not interested in pretending the man doesn't subscribe to white supremacist views. Continue to talk about markets. I think the white supremacy thing is inseparable from his body of work and demonstrates flaws in his general reasoning. But you don't have to agree, I'm not trying to convince you. As I said before, I cannot promise not to dislike the people you share or not to talk about why, whether niche Catholic racists or this guy. Please feel free to ignore my replies on the matter.
I'm highly generous with the noise label for those kind of comments.
Reasonable choice.
Mirror:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-the-trump-whale-correctly-called-the-election/ar-AA1tDvyI
In today's column, Matt Levine speculates about whether prediction markets will become less regulated, whether they will be more popular, whether insider trading is ethical for a prediction market, etc. Also:
Candidly the only thing of interest to me is the raw data. I would like to see it.
I don’t entirely follow, but here’s an economist on Twitter claiming that the French whale decided that the New York Times poll was wrong based on a math error.
could you kindly add tag
donald trumpplease?Done!