The post examines the performance of prediction markets in elections, current political forecasts, and various other prediction markets, while also discussing the challenges and potential of forecasting. Longer summary

This post discusses several topics related to prediction markets and forecasting. It starts by examining a claim that prediction markets have an 'election problem', showing that real-money markets performed poorly in recent elections. The author then analyzes current polls and prediction markets for the 2024 US presidential election, noting discrepancies between different platforms. The post also explores a forecasting experiment on AI futures, and reviews several other prediction markets on current events. Finally, it includes short links to other forecasting-related news and reflections. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming an illusion of moral decline, pointing out methodological flaws and suggesting alternative explanations for the perception of declining morality. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study by Mastroianni and Gilbert (MG) that claims there is an illusion of moral decline. The study argues that while people consistently believe morality is declining, objective measures show it has remained stable. Scott identifies several issues with the study's methodology and interpretation, including problems with timescale, accuracy, measurement, and sensitivity of the data used. He suggests that the perception of moral decline might be due to each generation judging the present by the moral standards of their youth, rather than a cognitive bias. Scott also points out that the study fails to consider many important aspects of morality in its analysis. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how Trump's presidency has unexpectedly decreased support for his own policies, analyzing polls and proposing several explanations for this counterintuitive trend. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes how Donald Trump's presidency has paradoxically led to a decrease in support for his own political positions. The post presents several polls showing increased support for free trade, immigration, and other non-Trumpist positions since 2016. Scott proposes various explanations for this phenomenon, including disgust with Trump as a person, partisan realignment, conservatives distancing themselves from Trump, increased media focus on negative aspects of Trump's policies, shifting of goalposts, and backlash effects similar to those seen in studies of disruptive protests. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of civility and honesty in politics, warning that being sufficiently repulsive can damage one's own cause. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that the 2016 US election outcome shouldn't drastically change our understanding of politics, given how close the race is. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues that the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election shouldn't dramatically change our understanding of politics and society. He criticizes both extreme predictions of a certain Hillary Clinton victory and a certain Donald Trump victory, pointing out that the race is close enough that the outcome could be determined by random factors like weather. Alexander suggests that people should precommit to their views on politics and society rather than drastically changing them based on the election result. He uses his own January 2016 prediction of Trump having a 20% chance of winning (conditional on winning the Republican primary) as an example of a reasonable prediction, given that prediction markets on election eve give Trump an 17.9% chance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander debunks the idea that Trump's supporters are disproportionately white, revealing that Bernie Sanders actually has much whiter support, and uses this to challenge common narratives about race and politics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the media narrative that Donald Trump's supporters are disproportionately white, showing it to be unsupported by polling data. He then reveals that Bernie Sanders, not Trump, has a much higher ratio of white to non-white support within his party. Scott uses this to illustrate two points: 1) 'white' in political discussions often means the 'Red Tribe' rather than literal race, and 2) low minority representation in a group doesn't necessarily indicate racism. He suggests that Sanders' lack of minority support might be due to him being seen as a 'weird intellectual signaling-laden countercultural movement', similar to other groups with low minority representation like atheists or BDSM enthusiasts. Shorter summary

The author analyzes results of a prediction contest about American political opinions, revealing participants' inaccuracies and biases in estimating current views and changes over time. Longer summary

This post discusses the results of a prediction contest where participants estimated current American opinions on political issues and how those opinions have changed over 22 years. The author analyzes the accuracy of predictions, noting that participants were generally poor at estimating current opinions but slightly better at predicting changes. The post reveals that participants tended to overestimate how leftist Americans are and how much society has shifted left. The author also mentions that there was little difference in accuracy between reactionary and progressive participants, and names the most accurate predictors. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Lizardman's Constant' and its implications for interpreting poll results, especially those concerning unpopular beliefs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'Lizardman's Constant', which refers to the roughly 4% of respondents in polls who give outlandish or deliberately false answers. He explores this through three examples: a personal experience with survey responses, a poll about conspiracy theories, and a controversial study on climate change skepticism. The post argues that when dealing with unpopular beliefs, polls can only provide weak signals that are easily overwhelmed by noise from various sources, including jokesters, cognitive biases, and deliberate misbehavior. Scott concludes that polls relying on detecting very weak signals should be treated with skepticism. Shorter summary