Recently Kalshi’s CEO Mansour said: “[Our] long-term vision is to financialize everything and create a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion”.
I would love to see people putting real money on the accuracy of social science research results. If the teams had a significant fraction of their funding depending upon the accuracy / repeatability of the results we might see somewhat more careful results.
That's interesting, but I am puzzled when I get to his chart titled "The Null Distribution and the Alternative With 80% Power." Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the yellow curve in this chart seems to make no sense. The yellow curve, giving the distribution of results under the alternative hypothesis, would surely depend on the effect size for the alternative hypothesis, wouldn't it? So we could not give a single curve for that. The curve for an alternative hypothesis of "the mean is 10" would be different from the curve for an alternative hypothesis of "the mean is 5."
I am very dubious on cremieux’s analysis on some fields. To the best of my understanding, the statistics are used to deal with observations that are scattered due to noisy data. I do not see how this applies to much mathematical or theoretical work in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and many engineering fields. It is very likely to apply to some purely observational fields where you are unable to arrange experimental conditions - Astronomy, Geology, …
"Criticizing bad science from an abstract, 10000-foot view is pleasant: you hear about some stuff that doesn't replicate, some methodologies that seem a bit silly. "They should improve their methods", "p-hacking is bad", "we must change the incentives", you declare Zeuslike from your throne in the clouds, and then go on with your day.
But actually diving into the sea of trash that is social science gives you a more tangible perspective, a more visceral revulsion, and perhaps even a sense of Lovecraftian awe at the sheer magnitude of it all: a vast landfill—a great agglomeration of garbage extending as far as the eye can see, effluvious waves crashing and throwing up a foul foam of p=0.049 papers. As you walk up to the diving platform, the deformed attendant hands you a pair of flippers. Noticing your reticence, he gives a subtle nod as if to say: "come on then, jump in"."
Context:
"Over the past year, I have skimmed through 2578 social science papers, spending about 2.5 minutes on each one. This was due to my participation in Replication Markets, a part of DARPA's SCORE program, whose goal is to evaluate the reliability of social science research. 3000 studies were split up into 10 rounds of ~300 studies each. Starting in August 2019, each round consisted of one week of surveys followed by two weeks of market trading. I finished in first place in 3 out 10 survey rounds and 6 out of 10 market rounds. In total, about $200,000 in prize money will be awarded.
The studies were sourced from all social science disciplines (economics, psychology, sociology, management, etc.) and were published between 2009 and 2018 (in other words, most of the sample came from the post-replication crisis era)..."
Are there any examples from your list for which you'd say the previous norm was better? I think Roderick Long made an argument that mutual aid insurance worked better than what we have now.
Roderick Long's take is that the groups didn't fade away only for government to step into the breach, but rather doctors got government assistance in squeezing out such mutual aid:
To me the big unanswered question is "*why* are these icky?".
What's icky about mutually advantageous trade?
Just spitballing - maybe in the ancestral environment all such things were embedded in lifelong personal relationships within a tribe. We got these things as part of a package of mutual support, and expected things to even out over time.
That more or less works in tribes small enough where everyone knows everyone. It completely breaks down in the "big society" where almost everyone is a stranger.
To expand - in the "big society" the support we give to others and which we receive from others goes to and comes from DIFFERENT strangers (because of specialization). So things *don't* even out over time with any particular stranger. So we use money.
Those who find it icky usually want to substitute the state for other tribe members. Which I find terrifying (the state is much much bigger than me and is therefore threatening).
This is an interesting list because of how incorrectly it captures the "money ick" taboos I'm familiar with!
In more dem-socialist societies, a significant amount of this list (some utilities, childcare, healthcare, some legal support, tuition fees, sperm donation) triggers some kind of "money ick"; some people even grumble when we have to pay for train tickets.
Of course, we pay for most of these indirectly through taxation, which allows us to distance ourselves of the moral pollution of paying for them directly.
A few non-tax examples (expensive engagement rings to signal commitment) also trigger a "money ick" to a (left-leaning?) European - I sense that a diamond ring might trigger the same "ick" in my circles that a cash dowry might trigger in the US. I'm curious how this differs among American subcultures, though - I suspect some Americans might share my taboos here.
A lot of everyday American money practices -such as overtly soliciting tips in a restraturant, and "pitching" for donations - also feel morally suspicious to a European.
Prostitution is an odd one to put in the latter category, because societies have considered prostitution "icky" for millenia (Code of Hammurabi clearly implies social stigma), and some of the most "pro-sex work" cultures are modern (modern Japan and Netherlands, perhaps).
These are perfect examples of the evolutionary and cultural differences associated with the monetization of goods or intangibles. Another example might be Substack upgrades to paid 😊
In Australia, there used to be a big ick against giving cash as a wedding gift as it was considered crass. A specific gift was more thoughtful. However, this ick is now gone, probably as a result of Asian migrants normalizing it plus extreme house prices. It changed some time between 1990 and 2010.
If the idea of surrogacy lost its money ick, birth rates might actually respond to state spending. Yes, I'm talking about governments renting the cheapest third world wombs and auctioning off the for adoption the white or Asian babies they gestate. (I'm also icked out by this.)
Our ancestors had distaste for the use of money instead of traditional structures of social obligation, and now our culture has... drifted... to be more accepting of that.
I would love to see people putting real money on the accuracy of social science research results. If the teams had a significant fraction of their funding depending upon the accuracy / repeatability of the results we might see somewhat more careful results.
All research results, really. You'd be surprised what happens in Physics and Chemistry:
https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/ranking-fields-by-p-value-suspiciousness
That's interesting, but I am puzzled when I get to his chart titled "The Null Distribution and the Alternative With 80% Power." Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the yellow curve in this chart seems to make no sense. The yellow curve, giving the distribution of results under the alternative hypothesis, would surely depend on the effect size for the alternative hypothesis, wouldn't it? So we could not give a single curve for that. The curve for an alternative hypothesis of "the mean is 10" would be different from the curve for an alternative hypothesis of "the mean is 5."
I asked Chat this and kind of understood the answer, but not well enough to explain it to someone else.
I am very dubious on cremieux’s analysis on some fields. To the best of my understanding, the statistics are used to deal with observations that are scattered due to noisy data. I do not see how this applies to much mathematical or theoretical work in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and many engineering fields. It is very likely to apply to some purely observational fields where you are unable to arrange experimental conditions - Astronomy, Geology, …
It's already been done, with a very entertaining writeup in fact: https://www.fantasticanachronism.com/p/whats-wrong-with-social-science-and-how-to-fix-it
"Criticizing bad science from an abstract, 10000-foot view is pleasant: you hear about some stuff that doesn't replicate, some methodologies that seem a bit silly. "They should improve their methods", "p-hacking is bad", "we must change the incentives", you declare Zeuslike from your throne in the clouds, and then go on with your day.
But actually diving into the sea of trash that is social science gives you a more tangible perspective, a more visceral revulsion, and perhaps even a sense of Lovecraftian awe at the sheer magnitude of it all: a vast landfill—a great agglomeration of garbage extending as far as the eye can see, effluvious waves crashing and throwing up a foul foam of p=0.049 papers. As you walk up to the diving platform, the deformed attendant hands you a pair of flippers. Noticing your reticence, he gives a subtle nod as if to say: "come on then, jump in"."
Context:
"Over the past year, I have skimmed through 2578 social science papers, spending about 2.5 minutes on each one. This was due to my participation in Replication Markets, a part of DARPA's SCORE program, whose goal is to evaluate the reliability of social science research. 3000 studies were split up into 10 rounds of ~300 studies each. Starting in August 2019, each round consisted of one week of surveys followed by two weeks of market trading. I finished in first place in 3 out 10 survey rounds and 6 out of 10 market rounds. In total, about $200,000 in prize money will be awarded.
The studies were sourced from all social science disciplines (economics, psychology, sociology, management, etc.) and were published between 2009 and 2018 (in other words, most of the sample came from the post-replication crisis era)..."
Excellent point
Are there any examples from your list for which you'd say the previous norm was better? I think Roderick Long made an argument that mutual aid insurance worked better than what we have now.
We've lost the tight groups connected to each other enough to make mutual aid work. Else insurance wouldn't have displaced that.
Roderick Long's take is that the groups didn't fade away only for government to step into the breach, but rather doctors got government assistance in squeezing out such mutual aid:
https://revolutionarybusiness.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-government-solved-healthcare-crisis.html
To me the big unanswered question is "*why* are these icky?".
What's icky about mutually advantageous trade?
Just spitballing - maybe in the ancestral environment all such things were embedded in lifelong personal relationships within a tribe. We got these things as part of a package of mutual support, and expected things to even out over time.
That more or less works in tribes small enough where everyone knows everyone. It completely breaks down in the "big society" where almost everyone is a stranger.
I think I'm (as usual) echoing FA Hayek here.
To expand - in the "big society" the support we give to others and which we receive from others goes to and comes from DIFFERENT strangers (because of specialization). So things *don't* even out over time with any particular stranger. So we use money.
Those who find it icky usually want to substitute the state for other tribe members. Which I find terrifying (the state is much much bigger than me and is therefore threatening).
This is an interesting list because of how incorrectly it captures the "money ick" taboos I'm familiar with!
In more dem-socialist societies, a significant amount of this list (some utilities, childcare, healthcare, some legal support, tuition fees, sperm donation) triggers some kind of "money ick"; some people even grumble when we have to pay for train tickets.
Of course, we pay for most of these indirectly through taxation, which allows us to distance ourselves of the moral pollution of paying for them directly.
A few non-tax examples (expensive engagement rings to signal commitment) also trigger a "money ick" to a (left-leaning?) European - I sense that a diamond ring might trigger the same "ick" in my circles that a cash dowry might trigger in the US. I'm curious how this differs among American subcultures, though - I suspect some Americans might share my taboos here.
A lot of everyday American money practices -such as overtly soliciting tips in a restraturant, and "pitching" for donations - also feel morally suspicious to a European.
Prostitution is an odd one to put in the latter category, because societies have considered prostitution "icky" for millenia (Code of Hammurabi clearly implies social stigma), and some of the most "pro-sex work" cultures are modern (modern Japan and Netherlands, perhaps).
Ok, I'll take prostitution off that list.
Actually, I put it back on, seems it was in fact accepted until ~1600. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP6tgqG0TUM
Legal until 1600s, but ick none the less.
The problem is we aren't comparing likes to likes. 99.9% of what we call prostitution nowadays wouldn't have been considered prostitution back then.
Street prostitutes maybe have always been "ick" but that's almost zero modern prostitution.
These are perfect examples of the evolutionary and cultural differences associated with the monetization of goods or intangibles. Another example might be Substack upgrades to paid 😊
What a convenient defense for a thing you liked before it was cool...
The selling of one’s grandmother continues to retain the ick.
In Australia, there used to be a big ick against giving cash as a wedding gift as it was considered crass. A specific gift was more thoughtful. However, this ick is now gone, probably as a result of Asian migrants normalizing it plus extreme house prices. It changed some time between 1990 and 2010.
If the idea of surrogacy lost its money ick, birth rates might actually respond to state spending. Yes, I'm talking about governments renting the cheapest third world wombs and auctioning off the for adoption the white or Asian babies they gestate. (I'm also icked out by this.)
Brilliant perspective! I’ve had casual thoughts along these lines. So cool to see that you have explored them in depth!
I am confused, this list is based on what exactly?
history
"There are fewer places we have acquired a money ick re things where we were once more comfy with money:"
Add another one, purchasing military commissions/promotions.
Our ancestors had distaste for the use of money instead of traditional structures of social obligation, and now our culture has... drifted... to be more accepting of that.