Alex Tabarrok is sick of pundits who make ridiculous predictions that they aren't held accountable for. He suggests systems where
In fact, the NYTimes should require that Silver, and other pundits, bet their beliefs.
...
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.
What we need even more: track records of pundit predictions. We really need to know who is right much more than 50% of the time. That way we'd know who to listen to. A betting system would help to do this. But even without cash involved if pundit predictions were recorded and checked we'd be better off.
| Share | | By Randall Parker at 2012 November 03 08:59 PM |
http://ideosphere.com
Although the scoring system is far from ideal. It tends to reward folks who engage in arbitrage much more than it does people who are genuinely prophetic about some particular area in which they possess foresight.
George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Erich Fromm, Jean J. Rousseau and even Carl Marx have so far been accurate to an amazing extent, especially if you consider how many years before today they were able to forecast.
Ah, but I forgot that we don't read those because our ultra-right Victorian modesty won't allow us: They uncover our nakedness.
Check it Out,
You can download and read their books for free. I've read Orwell and Huxley, though years ago.
Accurate: Show me specific predictions. I am very skeptical.