Doubting conventional wisdom seems pretty central to my style and central issues. So I took some time to ponder the general issue of doubt. Here’s what I came up with. The relation between confident and doubtful states of belief is like that between the three corners of a triangle and the points within the area of the triangle. Even though there are far more area points than corner points, area points are more similar to each other, in a distance sense. In the same way, there are far more states of doubt than confidence, yet states of doubt are more similar to each other, in that they lead to similar decisions.
I just realized that stock markets and bond markets are prediction markets. I realize they are not the broadly general prediction markets, but since stocks and bonds are investments, not consumables, the decision to buy a stock or bond is always a prediction that it will pay off worth the price.
I realize this is a trivial point, but if I just realized it, perhaps some others reading this will benefit from seeing it written down here.
It seems to me that philosophers mostly study questions where averaging is not a viable strategy for reducing error; this might account for their relative lack of interest in correlations between errors.
But on the other hand, surely major philosophical errors can also cause correlations? If, for example, I believe that I can predict the future by looking at animal entrails, then averaging isn't going to help me recover (at least about statements about the future).
I'm in favor of predictive markets, broadly speaking but I have to admit I haven't looked that deeply into the topic. A few years ago I worked briefly as a financial advisor with one of the big firms, and wound up helping several people in day trading after I left the firm. Long story short my keenest interest in finance was the behavior of the market from the socsci/psych perspective. All of that made me amenable to the idea of predictive markets in general.
On serious doubting, I think such an approach to life requires a deep desire to be genuinely wise. A search for wisdom sounds a little melodramatic, but true wisdom takes a path of humility, and that requires the ability to step back, and ask some questions that only the "doubters" will bother asking.
I'm not complaining -- I'm just enjoying myself by teasing you. It seems to be human nature, even (or perhaps especially?) among deep thinkers like you, to maximize the application of previously-established tools/ways/models of thinking to new questions. re: Maslow's hammer
Ray, I speak more in general, though am eager to support particular projects.
Robert, I'm not usually included in lists of econ, phil, psych, physics, futurist, etc. bloggers, because my topics range too widely to fit clearly in any one such group. But you and others seem to complain if I repeat common themes on my blog.
Newsflash: These topics soon to appear in Overcoming Bias:1. Doubt vs confidence -- how foragers and farmers differ!2. Self-doubt as a form of signaling (and/or for attracting mates).3. Betting against the signaling of false-doubts in prediction markets.Heh. All in jest, my friend. Keep up the good work.
Some philosophers believe in the coherence theory of truth. It looks like you're developing the incoherence theory of truth. That may be an improvement on the coherence theory.
How To Doubt
I just realized that stock markets and bond markets are prediction markets. I realize they are not the broadly general prediction markets, but since stocks and bonds are investments, not consumables, the decision to buy a stock or bond is always a prediction that it will pay off worth the price.
I realize this is a trivial point, but if I just realized it, perhaps some others reading this will benefit from seeing it written down here.
It seems to me that philosophers mostly study questions where averaging is not a viable strategy for reducing error; this might account for their relative lack of interest in correlations between errors.
But on the other hand, surely major philosophical errors can also cause correlations? If, for example, I believe that I can predict the future by looking at animal entrails, then averaging isn't going to help me recover (at least about statements about the future).
when in doubt, there is no doubt.
I'm in favor of predictive markets, broadly speaking but I have to admit I haven't looked that deeply into the topic. A few years ago I worked briefly as a financial advisor with one of the big firms, and wound up helping several people in day trading after I left the firm. Long story short my keenest interest in finance was the behavior of the market from the socsci/psych perspective. All of that made me amenable to the idea of predictive markets in general.
On serious doubting, I think such an approach to life requires a deep desire to be genuinely wise. A search for wisdom sounds a little melodramatic, but true wisdom takes a path of humility, and that requires the ability to step back, and ask some questions that only the "doubters" will bother asking.
Are you really sure this whole doubt thing is such a good idea?
I'm not complaining -- I'm just enjoying myself by teasing you. It seems to be human nature, even (or perhaps especially?) among deep thinkers like you, to maximize the application of previously-established tools/ways/models of thinking to new questions. re: Maslow's hammer
Ray, I speak more in general, though am eager to support particular projects.
Robert, I'm not usually included in lists of econ, phil, psych, physics, futurist, etc. bloggers, because my topics range too widely to fit clearly in any one such group. But you and others seem to complain if I repeat common themes on my blog.
And one more..:4: Are doubts about signaling "near" or "far"?
Newsflash: These topics soon to appear in Overcoming Bias:1. Doubt vs confidence -- how foragers and farmers differ!2. Self-doubt as a form of signaling (and/or for attracting mates).3. Betting against the signaling of false-doubts in prediction markets.Heh. All in jest, my friend. Keep up the good work.
" I refer of course to prediction markets."Um, yes... "of course" you do. :)
Some philosophers believe in the coherence theory of truth. It looks like you're developing the incoherence theory of truth. That may be an improvement on the coherence theory.
I'm one of your serious doubters, but I don't completely follow you on the "supporting a prediction market."
Are you trying to put something together, or are you simply bringing up prediction markets in general?