Ability to pay and betting as a sign of belief

By -
Noah Smith points out that bets reveal belief less than portfolios do.

There is another factor he has neglected: Given I am an honest bettor, I want to be able to pay, should I lose, without starving to death or declaring bankruptcy.

Say I am a modestly endowed person, supporting a family, and someone offers me a one-to-a-billion bet that when I wake up tomorrow, all of my internal organs will be on the opposite side of my body from where they are now, but I will still be alive.

I think the odds of this happening are less than one-in-a-billion. If I win I get (say) a dollar, but if I lose I am ruined. And bringing in the possibility of bankruptcy only makes things worse for those who want to assert that our willingness to bet reflects our true beliefs: if I am not going to pay anyway, but declare bankruptcy instead, then I can make any old bet I that tickles my fancy: "Yes, I'll give you a googleplex-to-one odds in your favor, no problem."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more