[extropy-chat] how partisanship skews perception

[Hal Finney]

Mike Lorrey writes:
> If extropians are
> such big supporters of futures markets being the best predictors of
> facts and future events, and futures markets behave according to price
> signals created by mass consensus, and mass consensus is that Iraq was
> involved in al Qaeda, isn't that more true than the flawed intelligence
> agencies conclusions that totally missed the events leading up to 911?

The error here is assuming that the consensus of a futures market is the
same as the consensus revealed by a poll.  If this were correct then the
idea futures concept would be worthless and polls would do just as well.

Actually, there is little need, reason or incentive for the average person
to bother to learn the true facts about the kinds of issues queried in
this poll.  The average person's beliefs have essentially no impact
on the relevant policies.  Being right or wrong on whether Iraq had
WMDs or worked with Al Qaeda makes no difference in how successful the
average person will be in his life.  Given this reality, it is perfectly
reasonable for people to adopt positions on these issues based on what
is convenient or comfortable, rather than on what is true.

However, once a person chooses to participate in a betting market, the
situation changes dramatically.  Now, it suddenly matters whether
they are right or not.  Real money is on the line.  Errors are costly.
Anyone reasonable person proposing to invest in a futures market will
take the time to acquaint himself with the facts, as best he can.

So I don't think it makes sense to assume that people's opinions about a
factual matter in a poll are particularly likely to be accurate, unless
it's an issue that really matters in people's lives.  The principle
behind idea futures markets is completely different than the kind of
consensus revealed by a poll.

Hal