Forecasting, Norms and the Island of Stability
What does the forecasting community want to be like?
Physicists have predicted that as synthetic elements get larger and larger, there will be an "island of stability." Current human-made elements, with symbols like UUT and UUP, are so large that strong nuclear force can’t hold them together, but there is a second equilibrium, somewhere out there, where they will be so large that gravity will hold them.
Communities have such equilibria too, around truth and comfort. There is the normy position where many things are unsayable, your right-wing uncle’s position that pronouns are beyond the pale, and perhaps a nascent EA hollow where a few more things can be questioned and discussed.
In short, free speech isn’t a binary. It is often a tradeoff between the ability to discuss interesting or controversial things and edgelordism and upset. But I think, across the desert, there is a broad place. A land flowing with both challenge and kindness.
I want a community that discusses hard things, but focuses on accuracy and kindness. Where any of the taboo discussions can take place but often they don’t. And when they do, we search for signals, not just the endless circlejerking of whichever man-child has just been thrown out of some other community.
And I think the forecasting community could be such a place. People want to understand the world, even if it is complex or ugly, and we have a mechanism to weed out the heterodox but useful from the edgy and useless - we have forecasting track records! I genuinely do take a Trump supporter much more seriously if they are making bank on the geopolitical markets. I’d probably enjoy hearing their political views much more also.
There is a difference between the irascible superforecaster and the edgelord. One makes predictions that in time the lab leak theory will be taken seriously in intelligence circles. The other endlessly complains that women will be the downfall of Western civilisation, without ever making any statement which could provably be wrong.
But this is a fragile equilibrium. Allowing much more speech means it’s easy to find one's community full of scoundrels and timewasters. At some point there is no island of stability - there is just a long tail to madness, racism, sexism and conspiracy.
So what do we tax and what do we subsidise? With our community, what behaviours are likely to get you friends and speaking invites and what behaviours are likely to lose you these things. It is naive to say none exist - I doubt you want physical violence or doxxing. So the question is, what norms should we want?
Personally, I want to encourage good forecasting and interesting ideation. And possibly just being great to hang out with. And I want to dissuade antisocial behaviour. Not necessarily that such people are banned, but that the invisible carrot can encourage such people to want to be better. Whether you like it or not, everyone has a line and free speech absolutists are not the only people I want to spend time with.
The problem is that edgelords are great fun. Donald Trump is a funny man. Kanye has spectacular comic timing. But these people harm the spaces they are part of.
I don’t want to be part of a space that is about the provocative discussion of race or gender. I want it to be low status to have these discussions thoughtlessly or repeatedly. I want dehumanising statements about groups of statements to come with a harsh community penalty. And I especially don’t want holding controversial positions to be a shortcut to speaking gigs and prestige. If the forecasting space incentivises such behaviour, then I will leave, as will other forecasters I know1.
And so I ask about two specific cases.
What about Richard Hanania? I see no spectacular forecasting track record. He writes things that read as straightforwardly racist2 and given his history, I’m not minded to give him the benefit of the doubt. He uses his platform to shame others’ lifestyles for explicitly aesthetic reasons3. He doesn’t actually believe in freedom of speech - he says that he’d shut many of us up if he could4. He does have positive features - he is at least clear about the above and sometimes writes in surprising directions, eg supporting veganism5 and increased immigration6 .
How should we behave towards him? I don’t have strong views on him attending events, but I don’t want him celebrated. What has he done worth celebrating?
A different case is Kalshi, they lobbied against PredictIt7, and nearly had them shut down. On the other hand they do run a great platform and are trying some interesting stuff.
How should we treat backstabbing and attempts at regulatory capture? Are we gonna become like the crypto community in which there are many internal scandals because the community can’t coordinate to punish them. Look how that’s ended with SBF and CZ.
I want this community to stand for something, not just the absence of other rules. If we are to be a free speech haven, then let's charge for inaccuracy, cruelty and defection. Let us slowly become more like the people we want to be - more kind, more curious, more accurate, heck even more edgy, up to a point. But if there are no lines, if the incentives are towards this kind of behaviour, then I’m not sure this place will become an island of stability, but rather sink into the swamp.
Here is a poll of some statements around this, to try and gauge consensus. https://viewpoints.xyz/polls/forecasting-community-norms
I imagine some might see this as a threat, but rather it is what I as an individual get to say about community spaces, relationships, contracts - if you do X, I will leave. And then you get to choose
“Daniel Penny getting charged. These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits.”
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1656770321368883201
Penny was charged for choking Jordan Neely to death. Neely was shouting at people on a train, so it appears to me that Hanania is calling black people “animals”. This is racist.
“I dislike obesity, piercings, and most tattoos unless you’re in a biker gang or the Azov Battalion and they show commitment to something. One of my deepest instincts is that I like men who look and act like men, and women who look and act like women. When feminists say that there are double standards in how we treat the sexes, I say of course you are right, and that is good and natural.
I think this revulsion towards androgyny is a prejudice that dare not speak its name on the right. Conservatives share pictures of hulking “trans women” and short-haired they/thems in Libs of TikTok videos, but don’t have the language skills or self-awareness to admit that they simply dislike how weirdos look and enjoy bonding with others who feel the same way.”
“I don’t feel particularly oppressed by leftists. They give me a lot more free speech than I would give them if the tables were turned. If I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post. Why should I? They’re wrong about everything and bad for society. Twitter [pre-Musk] is a company that is overwhelmingly liberal, and I’m actually impressed they let me get away with the things I’ve been saying for this long”
“Ever since I first heard the arguments against what we do to animals as a teenager, I’ve thought there is no way that the way we produce meat could be morally justified”
“ I don’t think these are great arguments, but they’re the best that restrictionists have, so they will be the ones I address here. In the end, I don’t think there’s much to suggest we should be concerned about how many immigrants are currently coming to the United States, or the characteristics of newcomers, and in fact we should be letting a lot more people in.”
This from their CFTC application “Contracts on political control of Congress available to US participants have been trading for nearly a decade. Since 2014, a similar contract has been available for trading on an unregistered trading venue that purports to operate under a No-Action Letter that was issued by the Division of Market Oversight in 2014 and granted relief to operate without complying with a number of aspects of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulations.” https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/filings/ptc/22/08/ptc082422kexdcm001.pdf and if this is what they’ll put in writing, what have they been attempting against competitors that we don’t know about
Should have said: I'm not (yet) convinced the if at the start of my comment is something that is a good idea.
If you want to justify being able to voice controversial or distasteful (to most people) views with accuracy, perhaps the norm should be to hold such writing to a high standard. Any writing promoting such views should have more precise forecasts associated with it, and/or show clear skin-in-the-game. This can be viewed as a spectrum, where very uncontroversial ideas do not need this while the most controversial should very strongly only include ideas backed up with something concrete. Just an off the cuff thought...