faceh
10d ago
Kalshi currently has 'legal' Election markets available to only U.S. citizens.
Scare quotes are because the case itself is still pending but the courts aren't preventing them from running the markets in the meantime.
If you want to participate in Polymarket specifically, that's just a matter of understanding a few of the technicalities of Crypto.
faceh
12d ago
I mean, what makes me say I'm introverted is my strong, strong preference to just hang out with people I know. It took me a lot of work to get to the point where I could just go out and socialize with people I don't have a pre-existing connection with. There's no level on which it comes 'natural' to me and thus it feels very effortful. In the past this might have been attributable to social anxiety but nowadays even in social settings where I feel comfortable I don't feel much urge to engage with strangers much.
Indeed, it often feels like I have to just view it all as a 'networking opportunity' where I might offchance meet somebody who has a useful skill or career who I can loop in with some other person I happen to know in hopes of leading to some mutual gain or maybe some business being returned down the road.
In short, I know that being TOO introverted is an impediment to one's career advancement and social standing, so I can force myself to do it, but I do not enjoy it for its own sake.
faceh
12d ago
Maybe, but have you ever met any actual people who would meet those definitions?
I mean, me, I'm an introvert. I have like a dozen or so 'close' friends that I keep in consistent contact with. I can expend extra effort to connect with new people but rarely see the need.
Meanwhile, I know some people who can enter any social situation and instantly ingratiate themselves to most other guests, even if they've never met. But they only ever spend like one hour at a given party because they've got other obligations, other people to meet, dontcha know.
So you rarely ever 'get to know' those sorts because they're only there as long as they're there, they don't put much effort into followup.
I think of intelligence like I think of processing power in a computer. Now below a certain level, if you don’t have enough, it’s going to be nearly impossible to do anything useful.
The reason I can't quite use this analogy is that even if you have a slow computer, as long as it is Turing-Complete, it CAN complete any given task you put before it, even if it takes literal centuries.
So being faster or slower to complete tasks is not quite the same as being able to handle more complex tasks. I sincerely believe there are problems that 150+ IQs can handle that are utterly beyond a 100 IQer, even if you gave the 100 specific, detailed instructions on how to complete it and gave them years to work on it without interference. MAYBE if you stuck a team of cooperative 100s who are at least capable of delegating tasks and getting along.
So there's other bottlenecks. "Working Memory" is probably the big one. I think extremely high IQ people are also defined by being able to fit a LOT more information in their working memory and thus can can bring all those mental resources to bear at once, rather than having to painstakingly write everything out and do each individual mental calculation one at a time.
So perhaps add in RAM to the equation. If you can't fit the majority of the problem in your head, at least big enough chunks of it to make progress, then you'll find yourself unable to ever solve it.
Side note, this is often how I feel most constrained when faced with complex problems. I can't actually 'visualize' the problem in my head because trying to load all the details in ends up pushing some parts out, and I can compensate by writing out bits of info, but this always slows me down substantially.
faceh
12d ago
I'll add the caveat that the selection of serial killers who have been caught might not reflect the entire population of serial killers. The smarter ones might have avoided detection entirely.
But I picked Dahmer because his whole thing was he was particularly intelligent and completely sociopathic and depraved... so we do NOT want more of them running around if we start selecting for more intelligence.
I model the Introvert-Extrovert distinction as those who like to form relatively few connections, but the connections they do form are strong and last a long time, vs. those who like to form many loose and 'weak' connections, and is constantly severing some and forming new ones based on various criteria.
And thus, where do they put their efforts? Introverts put effort into trying to maintain their existing friendships, extroverts put efforts into forming more, more, more and, almost by definition, can only devote small amounts of efforts to any given relationship (although they may have some they focus on more!).
So the result is that once the introvert has formed a decent number of strong connections, the thought of spending MORE effort on finding more relationships just doesn't make sense, to the extent it will take effort away from their existing relationships. And to the extrovert, being stuck with the same handful of people and unable to find new connections might seem unbearable.
Maybe its about novelty-seeking vs. preference for the familiar.
And thus, the thought of going to a party with tons of strangers might make the introvert miserable, while it would excite the extrovert.
What do you think IQ is exactly?
I'd put it as "Generalized ability to efficiently process increasing levels of complexity."
Now, its fair to say that efficiently processing some areas of complexity won't translate automatically to others, I think we can take autistic-savants and similar cases as evidence.
But that's really the sum total of what it seems to 'represent' about a person. If you moved them from Tic-Tac-Toe, to Connect-Four, to Checkers, to Chess, at which point would they genuinely start struggling?
Someone who works mostly with 2-dimensional concepts or in constrained workspaces probably demands lower IQ than someone who works in 3-D (or 4-D!) concepts in very open-ended environments. The former, for example could be a NASCAR driver who just has to be aware of his immediate surroundings and only has to navigate a closed circuit, and the latter would be an airline pilot or, perhaps, the technician who fixes the airplane, where there are a lot more variables at play, to say the least.
Reality can be 'infinitely' complex in theory, but someone who is comfortable with higher levels of complexity and can deduce certain patterns or cause-effect relationships is, almost certainly, going to be better at navigating the world. I read some research a while back, which I haven't been able to find again, suggesting that there's a strong negative correlation between reported IQ and the number of auto accidents someone experiences in their life.
Makes intuitive sense to me. The ability to think ahead and grasp possible consequences of an action "if I do X, then Y could possibly happen, and I might be injured or killed." and to notice when others are behaving in a way that might likewise cause an issue will help avoid negative outcomes by simply avoiding situations that could lead to such outcomes.
Now, high IQ can be hobbled by intense OCD, or high anxiety, or a lack of executive function, and I think that is mostly what will explain the divergence between IQ test results and real world success and status. Being socially inept can also be a major impediment. The slight 'paradox' is that an IQ test is a very constrained environment with minimal distractions and all the problems are 'legible' so even somebody with a crippling mental illness can probably perform well if they have the mental horsepower.
But I do think that, especially when measured across broad populations, IQ differences are the main reason some places are able to create and maintain complex civilizations with bridges that stay up, computers, and airplanes and others just revert to the simplest techs they can operate despite tons of outside assistance pouring in.
Our understanding of both intelligence and genetics is rife with unknown unknowns. Would we still get Von Neumann, Einstein, etc.? Supposing the technology became widely available and affordable, is that a fence you’d be willing to tear down?
I think so. The space of all possible designs for human minds is large, and contains Einstein and Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler and Mister Rogers, so we would certainly not want to move more into the space where there are more sociopaths than 'normals,' but the space is still constrained and thus its highly unlikely we accidentally produce a few MEGAHITLERS by accident.
The risk of creating a bunch of Jeffrey Dahmers (IQ of 145, allegedly) instead of more Einsteins and Von Neumanns is pretty minimal, and probably wouldn't kill us off, and on net I think we see improvement in everybody's standard of living. And probably faster than we would have 'normally.'
If I was presented with a button that, when pushed, instantly raised every living person's IQ by 5 points (as measured on tests), but changed nothing else, I would happily push it, I think it would substantially improve things in the near term and would have few negative side effects even across the long term.
What this tech sort of promises to do is achieve that same outcome, but across a longer timescale.
faceh
12d ago
How's that bad? I'd call that perfectly rational behaviour.
Perfectly rational behavior would probably be saying "I don't think I can accurately predict outcomes this far in advance."
So they add in the caveat "if the election were held today here is what the model says about the odds."
But the election isn't being held today. They know that, the audience also knows that but will still read the model.
Without a gimmick they have nothing to sell.
faceh
12d ago
I also think there's a bit of quandry from the 'search problem' wherein it can be impossible to know if you've actually found the best accessible maxima when optimizing for [whatever you value] or if you're only on a local maxima but a couple miles over is a much better one, if only you could find it.
For instance, if you only ever see big grey suburbs, it might feel like the ideal living arrangement, until you randomly come across a neighborhood built on different architectural principles and displaying different aesthetics, and you find it MUCH more appealing!
But if most neighborhoods are 'forced' to have the same or similar standards, obviously you're much less likely to encounter the variants you might prefer.
So a level of freedom to 'explore' design-space, or whatever other space, even if most paths are dead ends, is kind of critical, and allowing individual ownership (and the attendant creative expression that we argue comes with it) you enable a much wider search for the best maxima, and one hopes this improves everyone's wellbeing.
faceh
13d ago
But the outcome ISN'T really binary, is it?
Biden dropped out, Trump could have been killed by that bullet, and then we'd have a whole new ball game. The "Trump vs. Biden" model almost certainly didn't include a variable for "the Candidate abruptly drops out" and I doubt assassination risk was plugged in either.
And the fact that it tries to 'call' an election months out but has to adjust radically to new info is why I call it 'gimmicky.'
Taleb had his own discussion of this a while back, and this is the best summary of it I've found.
No Chronic health conditions and access to the best care available.
Jimmy Carter made it to 100 (for some values of 'made it') and I'd not be surprised if Trump is kicking at 90.
I upped by assessment of his health when I saw that recent video of him playing a round of golf.
faceh
15d ago
There's reputational risk for having his model diverge too far from the prediction market's call, if the markets end up looking more accurate.
And I've seen him offer various bets before.
I like Nate generally, but I end up with the feeling that the Presidential Election model is a bit too gimmicky for my tastes. As stated, he should display some factor that accounts for the inherent uncertainty of a long-term prediction, rather than making confident-seeming prognostications which get aggressively revised as new information comes in.
He's not calling his shot well in advance, he's just adjusting to the same information everyone else gets as it comes in. Credit for the model being reasonable, but what new information is it giving us?
faceh
15d ago
I generally think there's significantly more irreducible uncertainty out there than we like to acknowledge.
Even "margins of error" are just estimates (statistically sound, but still possible they're wrong) and actual outcomes can exceed them, rarely.
That's my main problem with Nate Silver's modelling.
There should be large error bars around the prediction that slowly close in as the predicted event approaches.
It shouldn't be "X% Trump, Y% Kamala," it should be "X% Trump, Y% Kamala, Z% irreducible uncertainty."
The logic is "if the election were held today then here's the probability." But... the elections won't be held today. That's the whole point of the prediction for a future event, and I think it behooves them to acknowledge that uncertainty is inherent to the modelling process.
If they'd included that back when it was Trump vs. Biden, the conserved probability would have accounted for Biden suddenly dropping out and wouldn't have broken the model instantly. Also helps reflect the chance that one of the candidates dies... which also almost happened.
And if Nate trusts his model, there's a ton of money to be made in the prediction markets.
faceh
15d ago
I'm just trying to prepare myself for how much worse things are going to get under the inevitable eight years of Harris.
Buy a bunch of "Yes" shares for a Kamala victory at a discount, enjoy your windfall.
I'm strongly considering it.
faceh
16d ago
Time is running out for that expediency. Its been three months since the one that came within an inch of working.
faceh
16d ago
Mostly about the degree. I wasn't expecting 'neutral' moderators, but the live and direct fact checking allowed them to speak for Kamala so she didn't have to risk a gaffe with her own responses.
So basically they mitigated a major risk by reducing Kamala's need to speak for herself, and THAT I hadn't foreseen.
faceh
16d ago
Correct, but overall there are WAY fewer mail-in votes.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/election-2024-early-voting-data/index.html
Goes to my point, we aren't in Covid Times. There's probably less room to hide any efforts to fudge numbers.
Unfortunately, in this election I'm left hoping that the winning candidate is not able to implement their policies.
For the last 3 presidential elections I've explicitly been hoping for partisan legislative Gridlock as the only real check on bad policy. Granted, partisan gridlock tends to produce even worse policies, but at least its fewer of them.
With the added bonus this time around that the Supreme Court has managed to hamstring and will possibly continue gutting Administrative agency authority, I'm REALLY hoping for gridlock now.
I'll take credit for a decent prediction back when she became the candidate:
I continue to be near certain she ends up dragging in the polls when the honeymoon period ends and she actually makes public appearances."
I could not have anticipated this specific string of bad news, but "Kamala finally does unscripted interviews and comes across HORRIBLY" is exactly what I expected. Bad Product with good marketing. A fucking TAYLOR SWIFT endorsement didn't even help Harris! Granted, if Swift actually lent her muscle to the campaign itself it might have nudged things.
"JD Vance, an attorney with a YALE LAW SCHOOL Degree outperforms Walz in the VP Debate" was also on my bingo card.
I have to admit I was wrong on my prediction for the Trump-Harris debate.
I think I reasoned correctly with regard to the candidates, but did NOT foresee it becoming a 3 v. 1 with the Moderators basically carrying Kamala over the line, and thus the subsequent increase in her polls.
But she is precisely what she's always been, and I don't think it is possible to rehab her public image any further at this point. I do not know what affirmative action (heh) she could take to goose her polls, and it is extremely unlikely that Trump does something that actually hurts his standing much, or any new revelations come out that actually hurt him.
Also, several of the various legal cases against him appear to be imploding. Even the one where he was already found guilty.
I say this with pun slightly intended: The Dems appear to be mostly out of ammo. The one thing that is still out there is the extent to which they CAN get out the vote and/or the extent that election fraud does actually occur. I make no specific claims, this is OBVIOUSLY still a close election.
However I also expect that given the intense scrutiny on election integrity, some affirmative steps at securing the elections that some states have taken, and the fact that we're not in the same weird world that was Covid-Addled 2020, the fraud factor will be much lesser this time around.
faceh
17d ago
This could be presented as a solid argument. Renting also means the real owner can take back their property under certain conditions, leaving you with nothing even if you technically still have the money to cover it.
So you would want to own the basic equipment that allows you to be economically productive so changing economic conditions won't immediately kneecap you.
Silver is tentatively on my very short "Good Pundits" list in that he seems to honestly eschew bias in his prognostications and is completely willing to tell his own side when they are being utterly stupid.
His willingness to throw down bets on his own arguments is also promising.
More options
Context Copy link