Ya this is a pretty fatal flaw.
Voters pay money, but have to pay less when they have a lot of hearts? The person judged to be correct will receive money? This just begs for sock-puppets who like all of each others posts and vote the “correct” way.
or a cult where everyone learns to think and speak exactly like The Arbitrator, or face punishment
Along the same vein as your idea, but not exactly.
I particularly enjoy the “poll the forum” questions with % likelihood something will happen.
There could be a daily (weekly?) forum wide forecasting poll where posters individually predict the outcome of an uncertain binary event and assign it X% probability. Posters would be ranked based off their Brier score (a quick Google shows a few good ideas for modifying this for contests).
Posters would get badges for what percentile they rank in for prediction. Would be much easier to identify who does and doesn’t know what they are talking about, and how confident they are.
To introduce the gambling aspect, maybe you only have the opportunity to earn a badge if you are a paid monthly subscriber, and top X scores each month (quarter?) split the pot.
1 Like
Kant who? I don’t think Immanuel Kant was into gambling.
He was a pissant.
1 Like
He proposes it in A Critique of Pure Reason.
The usual touchstone of whether what someone asserts is mere persuasion or at least a subjective conviction, i.e., firm belief, is betting. Often someone pronounces his propositions with such confident and inflexible defiance that he seems to have entirely laid aside all concern for error. A bet disconcerts him. Sometimes he reveals that he is persuaded enough for one ducat but not for ten. For he would happily bet one, but at ten he suddenly becomes aware of what he had not previously noticed, namely that it is quite possible that he has erred.
1 Like
I don’t recall reading this in the Critique (which I read closely in college) but I did happen upon it a few days ago when discussed in Konnikova’s new book, The Biggest Bluff.
(Google search tells me it’s in supplementary material at the end, like p. 800ish, depending on the edition/translation.)
1 Like
I’m reading her book right now too. It’s what made me think of this and dig back into Kant which I hadn’t read in a decade.
P.S. I’m really enjoying her book.
1 Like
Yeah, I’m enjoying her book. Made a small post about it in the What are You Reading thread.
PS I have a philosophy prof ex-gf who wrote her dissertation on Kant, but that was some years after she was my ex gf. (We met in the philosophy dept, but I bailed out of grad school for law school after a few years.)
Maybe we should base legal systems on this idea - oh, too late we already did.
1 Like
Ahhhh…gotcha. Your first mention of Kant made it sound like he was proposing an online politics forum based on gambling, lol. My bad.
Based on the title, I thought this thread was going to be about how dumb the 2+2 forum is.
1 Like
Does no one else get the reference?
