Also interesting on the bets. I'm surprised when people on twitter/x or worse (on a recent podcast!) start betting each other on an outcome in a debate. I had thought it was a strange show of wealth or something. Your framing on making it 'matter' is interesting....
See... that gets back to the entire point of my post. I think we should all care about being right and testing our debates to see who is right. I think the results should matter. And you were right.
Thanks Matt! So great to hear from you. We should catch up sometime I’d love to hear what you are up to now.
I definitely agree with the wisdom of the crowd. My critique is that it appears the debate is more important to most people than the accuracy of the prediction. That’s why I prefer betting on it rather than debating.
for every "creator" who is wrong with one direction, there is another creator who is wrong in the opposite direction. Hopefully they all cancel out and we are left with the correct answer
but this only works if we foster true democracy, free speech, and try our best to amplify truth. Fighting lies just seems like a more stressful way to achieve the same goal? but maybe we need fighters. who knows
also, with regards to predictions-- agreed it's good to reflect on the accuracy of "experts" and reject those that are consistently incorrect... however, why are all experts problematic? surely there are experts that are consistently correct?
And when it's time for us to make a call, like for social/governing policies, how are the decision makers going to distill signal from the noise to make the best call possible? I'd hope that policy makers are not terribly influenced by career pundits. Those people are no different from any other content creator.
Thanks Matt! So great to hear from you. We should catch up sometime I’d love to hear what you are up to now.
I definitely agree with the wisdom of the crowd. My critique is that it appears the debate is more important to most people than the accuracy of the prediction. That’s why I prefer betting on it rather than debating.
I'm probably less than 50%. Technically it started as a "predictions" spreadsheet. I would take screenshots of things people said in the media and then revisit it later. That dude Scott Galloway is wrong constantly! lol
hahaha yeah i've seen him on the apps. he's an influencer though, so he's incentivized to give takes, not to be right.
For economics, I don't normally like listening to predictions, but i really enjoy creators who spend effort to look back and reflect. There's this youtuber who is a little too high-level, but I appreciate a decent number of his videos. Maxinomics. Here is one video he just posted yesterday on the challenges for insurance companies and natural disasters, and the bad policy that came from it in Florida and California. Natural disasters have been clearly on the rise, and policy makers in those states have clearly failed, and current policy makers have to walk things back now.
As a generality I agree with what you are stating. We do have a real life example going on right now that we can pick apart and debate... but at this point I am siding with the "wrong" side.
Lets look at the populist socialist running for NYC mayor Mamdani. Everything he is purposing has been tried and failed, and all the experts are claiming that its only going to make NYC "worse". But the question becomes "worse" then what? Greatest disparity in income? Too expensive for required workers to live in and travel into (Thinking teachers, garbage men, etc...) So then the wrong idea is to attempt a form of socialism in NYC... but if its already in a death cycle does it hurt to try an idea that is from "left field"? I agree socialism will not work country wide... but in a big city? Does it hurt to try?
Personally 🍿 I cannot wait for it to work and then see them building a wall to keep out the rift raft...
I dont know the right answer, but what is currently going on a big D circle of corruption destroying the city... does it matter if its a different big D corrupt attempt at fixing the city? What is the worst that happens? It spirals faster, or maybe it stops the bleeding? IDK but we are about to find out!
Also interesting on the bets. I'm surprised when people on twitter/x or worse (on a recent podcast!) start betting each other on an outcome in a debate. I had thought it was a strange show of wealth or something. Your framing on making it 'matter' is interesting....
It’s nice to put a little action on the predictions!
Amen! Should have bet you about the real estate market 🤣🤣
lol you totally should have. you would have been right !
I don't really care about "being right". I enjoy learning, teaching, and debate!
See... that gets back to the entire point of my post. I think we should all care about being right and testing our debates to see who is right. I think the results should matter. And you were right.
Thanks Matt! So great to hear from you. We should catch up sometime I’d love to hear what you are up to now.
I definitely agree with the wisdom of the crowd. My critique is that it appears the debate is more important to most people than the accuracy of the prediction. That’s why I prefer betting on it rather than debating.
Well said! I often wonder why people continually listen to people who have been wrong over and over and misled them over and over... Fascinating...
noise, in any direction, is unavoidable right? it'll only worsen as content creation is more and more democratized, and accessible.
if possible, faith in the wisdom of the crowd can be helpful. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd)
for every "creator" who is wrong with one direction, there is another creator who is wrong in the opposite direction. Hopefully they all cancel out and we are left with the correct answer
but this only works if we foster true democracy, free speech, and try our best to amplify truth. Fighting lies just seems like a more stressful way to achieve the same goal? but maybe we need fighters. who knows
also, with regards to predictions-- agreed it's good to reflect on the accuracy of "experts" and reject those that are consistently incorrect... however, why are all experts problematic? surely there are experts that are consistently correct?
And when it's time for us to make a call, like for social/governing policies, how are the decision makers going to distill signal from the noise to make the best call possible? I'd hope that policy makers are not terribly influenced by career pundits. Those people are no different from any other content creator.
Thanks Matt! So great to hear from you. We should catch up sometime I’d love to hear what you are up to now.
I definitely agree with the wisdom of the crowd. My critique is that it appears the debate is more important to most people than the accuracy of the prediction. That’s why I prefer betting on it rather than debating.
Sure, that'd be fun! I'm in NYC now if you're ever around.
Yeah we need a platform that can act as arbiter, and you can post bets and accept bets from anybody. Could be fun, and maybe even helpful
Right now I just track it all with a spreadsheet that I've been keeping for about 15 years lol
Jesus. How many bets have resolved? how's your win-rate looking??
I'm probably less than 50%. Technically it started as a "predictions" spreadsheet. I would take screenshots of things people said in the media and then revisit it later. That dude Scott Galloway is wrong constantly! lol
hahaha yeah i've seen him on the apps. he's an influencer though, so he's incentivized to give takes, not to be right.
For economics, I don't normally like listening to predictions, but i really enjoy creators who spend effort to look back and reflect. There's this youtuber who is a little too high-level, but I appreciate a decent number of his videos. Maxinomics. Here is one video he just posted yesterday on the challenges for insurance companies and natural disasters, and the bad policy that came from it in Florida and California. Natural disasters have been clearly on the rise, and policy makers in those states have clearly failed, and current policy makers have to walk things back now.
I also liked this video on American anti-capitalist policy that negatively affected our nuclear industry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxDd3Whl_9s
And this video on the history of tariff policy in the US, and it's historical effects, is a quick watch too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LJi6iFHqDc
As a generality I agree with what you are stating. We do have a real life example going on right now that we can pick apart and debate... but at this point I am siding with the "wrong" side.
Lets look at the populist socialist running for NYC mayor Mamdani. Everything he is purposing has been tried and failed, and all the experts are claiming that its only going to make NYC "worse". But the question becomes "worse" then what? Greatest disparity in income? Too expensive for required workers to live in and travel into (Thinking teachers, garbage men, etc...) So then the wrong idea is to attempt a form of socialism in NYC... but if its already in a death cycle does it hurt to try an idea that is from "left field"? I agree socialism will not work country wide... but in a big city? Does it hurt to try?
Personally 🍿 I cannot wait for it to work and then see them building a wall to keep out the rift raft...
I dont know the right answer, but what is currently going on a big D circle of corruption destroying the city... does it matter if its a different big D corrupt attempt at fixing the city? What is the worst that happens? It spirals faster, or maybe it stops the bleeding? IDK but we are about to find out!
I honestly hadn't thought of that... I'm thinking about it.. Good points.