This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is non-public information leaking into election betting markets?
Prior to the debate, on Predict It, Biden had something like an 85% chance to secure the Democratic nomination. After the debate, his odds fell to around 60%. By last night, it had eroded further to 50%.
Last night the flippening happened. The bottom fell out of Biden shares and went to Kamala. As of this moment, Kamala Harris trades at 51% and Biden is at just 29%.
As far as I can tell nothing has changed since 24 hours ago, so what gives? A few possibilities I can think of:
Someone is manipulating the markets to create a false consensus. I think this is the most likely. Mega-donors will spend billions on this election. A Biden campaign is doomed. Spending a couple million to move markets could have an outsized effect.
Non-public information is leaking. A source high in the Democratic party is talking and his friends are betting.
A whale is making a giant bet. I view this as the least likely because moving the market this much tends to be extremely unprofitable. Without inside info, this would be a very stupid bet.
Edit 1: I wouldn't rule out manipulation, but it does seem there was some public information to move the market.
Edit 2: Michelle Obama is up to 12%, which is the same as Newsom. Normally, the lower percentage bets are not liquid, but 12% rises to the level of "something, not nothing". Michelle Obama solves the Kamala Harris problem. And if we're electing useless figureheads she's better than Biden. But does she even want to run?
Scott Alexander needed years to realize that yes, Biden is on his path to dementia. Maybe it is just that now more bettors have finally realized what is going on.
With the public information we had strong priors that Biden shows signs of likely dementia and if true, it will be progressing. Recently we saw how much it had progressed. Now we can estimate how much worse Biden will be in 1 month, 2 months, 4 months etc. with quite narrow confidence intervals.
As Anatoly Karlin says – it is all programmed. Previously people just refused to believe these bad news.
Similarly it was with effectiveness of masks in preventing covid. I didn't see any prediction markets but many people wanted to believe them to be effective despite all the evidence. When it was all reviewed and Cochrane review was published many still refused to believe that the evidence for any benefit is non-existent. Politicians are especially resistant to negative scientific findings but eventually they will be forced to accept reality in one way or another.
I’m not convinced that there’s “nothing going on”. The democrats are leaking bits of information about Biden’s mental state, and none of it has been reassuring. And I think that by itself is telling. If they thought he still had a chance, they would not be leaking what they are because there’s no way to back off from “he’s only good between 10 and 4.” Or that he’s not always with it at important meetings like G7. If they weren’t pushing for a change, it doesn’t make sense to leak that your president has dementia this bad.
I think this is what prediction markets are picking up on. If this is what’s being made public, then I don’t think they can actually continue with Biden. Kamala seems a reasonable choice, as she can step in as President and save the day.
The issue with Biden's dementia was revealed by Biden himself 4 years ago. In one response to Trump he revealed that he knows the details of the test used to assess dementia. Apparently he had been evaluated by doctors already then. We just have never been told the results and how they have changed with time.
Leaking this information would reduce uncertainty but essentially it would be the same that we can infer from videos but more precise.
I'd imagine anybody at that level of politics at his age would be subject to a lot of medical screening.
Not that Biden doesn't clearly show signs of pre-dementia, but I'd be surprised if Trump etc hadn't also been screened at some point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link