I evaluate arguments on their own merit, not based on extraneous data like appeal to authority or what bets the author makes.
You are, on some level, suggesting that money is a more compelling argument than an actual argument, because that is your only response.
(Instead of engaging with some some random internet commenteer.)
So what? No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices. It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying).
[I can't actually read anything beyond the tweet you linked because twitter is stupid].
True!
> It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying).
False! If the author was sufficiently confident in their claims, they'd be happy to take the free money (or, if they're sufficiently liquidity-constrained, propose a smaller bet at similar terms). You can certainly argue that the practice of betting on one's beliefs is "weird" but that objection is circular. If you claim to see free money on the ground, and other people notice that you aren't picking it up, they would be correct to wonder why.
I don't gamble, and even if I did I certainly wouldn't take a bet for a large sum of money with some internet rando playing a rhetorical game.
Bets like the one discussed here are a rhetorical tic of the "rationalist" community.
> ...parent's argument sounds reasonable to me.
Kinda sorta. It's just a weird ritual of theirs to demonstrate commitment, and they often have a really hard time understanding that their weird rituals and mores are not universal and they can't reasonably go around expecting random people on the internet to follow them. Challenging someone to a bet like this comes off exactly as a challenge to prove your commitment by putting a bucket on your head and banging it with a stick for an hour, just because that's some weird thing the challenger's friends do among themselves.
The bucket on head example certainly is weird. I just don't see how that's related. The logic I'm seeing is 1) the "rationalist" community does x, 2) I don't like the rationalist community, 3) so x is stupid. Is there more to it?
Let me explain it to you slowly and clearly: neither challenging people to bets nor banging a bucket on your head are things typically asked of people to prove their commitment to a statement, hence it's weird to ask someone to do them. They might common in some weird subculture, but it is additionally weird to go up to someone outside of that subculture and make weird subcultural demands.
Also the examples you gave are literally rude, for the most part, and don't actually mean what you seem to think they mean (if you want a source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/put%20up%20or%20s...).
> The logic I'm seeing is 1) the "rationalist" community does x, 2) I don't like the rationalist community, 3) so x is stupid. Is there more to it?
You see wrong.
We apparently just live in different universes. In my universe, one of those things is completely unremarkable. I must be a part of some weird subculture, TIL.
> Also the examples you gave are literally rude, for the most part, and don't actually mean what you seem to think they mean
Like most things, they can be rude, or they can be completely benign, depending on the context and delivery. I don't see anything conflicting in the definition you linked, but as you pointed out, I see wrong, so that's probably why.
Having even minor amounts of skin in the game would make it a lot more likely he's sharing, well, actual beliefs not opportunistic opinions.
I also have never read any rationalist whatever you're complaining about and you're clearly attempting to discredit people who think Ed is probably just venal. I think you're the one who needs to touch grass here and spend less time on Twitter/x/threads/whatever has you so convinced everyone else is wasting time on them.
I agree that in practice, it's pretty likely that the author of the piece refuses to bet at least in part because betting substantial sums of money on outcomes that are non-central subjects of wagers (i.e. not an explicit game of chance, sports, politics, etc) is socially unusual. But I also think that if he was very confident he'd be happy to take the money.
You're presupposing that the only possible rational reason they might have to not bet might be that they are not confident but that's obviously not the case.
Just to pick one possible rational reason, maybe they or a loved one have been touched by the negative consequences of gambling so they don't believe in betting?
If you have convincing enough evidence for it, a bet is more likely than something that looks like money on the ground. Imagine betting the sun will rise tomorrow.
> You're presupposing that the only possible rational reason they might have to not bet might be that they are not confident but that's obviously not the case.
They didn't say it's the only reason, just that refusing to bet weakens their claim of confidence. Plausible but unconfirmed reasons are why it's only a weakening rather than disproof, but it's still a weakening.
And no I wouldn't bet that the sun will rise tomorrow. For a number of reasons. Firstly I don't care that much about money (shocking but true), so there is little to no upside if I was to win the bet other than the general benefit I would derive from the sun rising and I get that whether I bet or not.
Secondly I think betting about facts is an incredibly foolish thing to do in general. If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.
Finally betting with some random that I have no reason to think would make good on their side of the bet if I was to win. idk man that just seems like a really dumb idea. I don't understand why people think it makes them smart to think otherwise.
> If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.
I think it's pretty clear in this case that's it's a genuine disagreement about the fate of the company.
> Finally betting with some random that I have no reason to think would make good on their side of the bet if I was to win. idk man that just seems like a really dumb idea. I don't understand why people think it makes them smart to think otherwise.
There are plenty of trustworthy arbiters/platforms available. For most people spending a couple hours looking into it is easily worth the money... if they're right.
Well, that sure sounds like a claim about how confident one should be about their understanding of reality. One most people disagree with, incidentally - do you own any equities?
Counterparty risk is a valid reason to avoid certain bets (or bet structures), but a totally separate objection from "betting is a weird thing that only weirdos do".
Meanwhile a bet over a silly internet discussion can get stuck in significant transaction costs vs buying, selling or even shorting a stock for the same money.
What? No.
I'm very confident in my driving skills. I'm a great defensive driver. But I won't bet on me not getting in a wreck this next year.
Because the real world is complicated and truly anything can happen. That doesn't mean you're right, that means you got lucky.
For example the Simpson's creators aren't clairvoyant geniuses, they just happened to get a lot of stuff right.
You already have, by deciding on a specific level of coverage for your auto insurance policy.
(That aside - really? Either you get into many more accidents than the average person, or you're not extrapolating out into the future. If given the chance to take the same bet at 1:1 odds every year, surely you'd then take it every year until you decided to stop driving for safety reasons?)
I see a few accidents a day. Nobody actually wants to drive really, we just do it because we have to. If I could teleport to work or even take a train I'd do it, and I'm not alone in that.
Point is, I don't feel comfortable betting on things where there's a large amount of outside influence. And no, insurance isn't betting. It's risk pooling, not betting.