Beyond Labels

A 360° Discussion of Foreign, National and Local Policy Issues

Betting on politics

PredictIt Politics

Prediction markets are places where you can place a bet–for money, or reputation, or just for fun–on what you know and what you can predict based on what you know. Gwern Branwen, a brilliant guy whose writing I follow on the Internet, has written a long essay on prediction markets. He says he likes betting because, “A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge.”

If you think you understand both legal issues and the thought processes of Supreme Court justices you can go to the “Fantasy SCOTUS predictions” market where you can put your money where your legal knowledge lies.

FantasyScotus

Or you can go to the site PredictIt (the image of parts of their US Presidential market is the lead for this article).

Gwern’s article, the one that includes the “betting as a tax on bullshit,” quote that I used in the lead. Is worth reading. Gwern cites his sources diligently and defines his terms carefully. In this case, he’s got a link to a part of the Wikipedia article on bullshit (Did you know there was such an article?) that describes the work of philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University, who wrote an essay called “On Bullshit(which also has its own Wikipedia article) and which clarifies which of the many meanings of the term he might using.

The full quote is below, and heads this section of Gwern’s very long essay, research paper, or call-it-what-you will.

Overall, I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge.

 

By the way, anyone concerned about the quality of thought on the Internet has only to read people like Gwern, and Scott Alexander to see that reasoned discourse is alive and well, at least in some of the corners and back alleys of the Internet. The New York Time, and Wall Street Journal are OK, but these guys and their confreres write things of greater value.

 

Perspective on ISIS

The attacks in Paris have brought ISIS to the top of the news feeds (again). As recently as last June, their expansion was viewed as a grave and growing threat:

From an article in Time: “As ISIS expands their territory they become increasingly dangerous

“One of the prerequisites of a caliphate is a significant swath of territory,” says Shadi Hamid, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “So the more territory you have the more legitimacy your caliphate will have. That’s historically been the case, and ISIS very self-consciously thinks it’s modeling the first generations of Islam, where you these very impressive territory conquests in a short period of time.”

“If their territory was rolled back significantly, it would be harder for them to make various arguments,” says Hamid, whose new book, Temptations of Power, is on Islamist movements. “If eventually they were reduced to a very small piece of Syria, then the idea of a caliphate wouldn’t resonate as much with potential supporters.”

In the time around June, when this article was written, ISIS had some success. Here’s a web site with an interactive map that shows the territory they controlled on July 1, 2015:

ISIS July 1 2015

And here is November 11, 2015, just after the Sinjar offensive.

 

 

 

ISIS Nov 15 2016

This article in The Atlantic,  a follow-on to their great must-read article “What ISIS really wants” calls it a stalemate. But that was before the Paris attacks.

Muslim support for ISIS in polls reported in “The New Republic” is low in most countries: only a few percent, as compared to much higher support for Hamas, for example.  Yet, as the article points out, the 3 percent approval in Egypt is 1.5 million people. The attacks take attention off their territorial losses so that they can continue to present themselves as a growing, vibrant movement.

 

But every time there’s an attack like this it makes it easier for those who find themselves with common cause to push them back to gain the resources and make the agreements needed for effective action.

As was pointed out in a discussion this summer, there are plenty of people in the area who don’t like them: basically everyone. But they don’t all get along that well, which makes it hard for them to coordinate and form alliances. But these attacks, public beheadings and the like which motivate people to join the ISIS cause also motivate people to oppose it.

As their power is diminished, the need to oppose them drops, so there’s a good chance that they won’t be hammered out of existence. But whenever they make gains or public displays, the need to oppose them grows. They’re kind of a chronic low-grade infection, around for a while but not too serious.

The 2016 Presidential Election Process

A few weeks ago, we touched on the upcoming Presidential election and our participants’ preferences for the various candidates. Bob Sargent has expressed an interest in devoting a meeting in the near future to the 2016 Presidential Election. We can discuss:

  • The candidates
  • The key issues (at least as articulated (or avoided!) by the candidates)
  • Media coverage of the electoral process

There should be plenty to discuss! Perhaps next week?

  • Subscribe via Email

    Receive email notification of new posts/announcements about our weekly meeting.

    Join 238 other subscribers
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments