I wrote that post. It was just a thought, and I don’t know enough about prediction markets to make firm statements about their effectiveness on issues like climate change. Would an underlying systematic bias because of the salience of climate change over other potentially deadly events make the prediction stray from the truth? Or would enough “experts” that no longer have to pander to the public at large bet enough to most closely approximate the truth? Is this even knowable?
I wrote that post. It was just a thought, and I don’t know enough about prediction markets to make firm statements about their effectiveness on issues like climate change. Would an underlying systematic bias because of the salience of climate change over other potentially deadly events make the prediction stray from the truth? Or would enough “experts” that no longer have to pander to the public at large bet enough to most closely approximate the truth? Is this even knowable?
Hey,
I wrote that post. It was just a thought, and I don’t know enough about prediction markets to make firm statements about their effectiveness on issues like climate change. Would an underlying systematic bias because of the salience of climate change over other potentially deadly events make the prediction stray from the truth? Or would enough “experts” that no longer have to pander to the public at large bet enough to most closely approximate the truth? Is this even knowable?
Hey,
I wrote that post. It was just a thought, and I don’t know enough about prediction markets to make firm statements about their effectiveness on issues like climate change. Would an underlying systematic bias because of the salience of climate change over other potentially deadly events make the prediction stray from the truth? Or would enough “experts” that no longer have to pander to the public at large bet enough to most closely approximate the truth? Is this even knowable?