schizoidboy

Thanks, I've added an existing research section and will reach out to researchers in the field for more feedback.

Thanks, I've tried to expand the abstract.

I think the meta-point is that betting on intellectual ideas is an underused tool in the toolbox of decision making. Endless academic journal debates don't seem to help much in moving people across ideological divides.

For all of those that disagree with his methodology or conclusions, if you can reach him, I recommend putting your money where your mouth is and proposing a different bet with Dr. Caplan.

I see a lot of people in the comments offended by his tone. I see his tone as analogous to a soccer player celebrating after a goal. We should socially encourage such behavior for those who win fair intellectual bets. (Although there is such a thing as unsportsmanly gloating, although I don't think this is such an example.)

The point is that these are bets between people who disagree with each other. They negotiate the data and terms and hopefully learn from the result and change their minds. This is one way to help tune bayesian priors about what ideas and people to trust and investigate further.

Dr. Caplan is a big proponent of betting. Disputes in academic journals are endless and inconclusive. Betting gets people to put their money where their mouth is. I think this is the best part of the economics profession and needs to be applied to more parts of society.

It's worth noting that the economist John Quiggin didn't propose an adjustment for this in the bet.

> Second, he never addresses any other value than the unemployment rate as a number (for example, I can easily imagine an "apologist" being uninterested in his bet if they think he might be right about the numbers, but they value the regulation for other reasons). In never addressing their views, he dismisses them as unworthy.

Dr. Caplan reached out to the other economists and they didn't respond (which could have included proposing a different bet with different values). He is very judgy about public intellectuals that don't bet on their claims. I wouldn't call that dismissive because said intellectuals impose massive costs on society if they're wrong. It's not enough to hide behind unquantifiable hopes.

> I know nothing of the people or personalities involved...but this does not give me a good impression of the author. First, he never refers to anyone with a contrary opinion in any way other than "apologist".

Apologist is a bit of a brash word, but it's a possible conclusion if a public intellectual is unwilling to put their ideas to tests and revise if necessary.

He includes a link to data connecting unemployment to unhappiness.

His so-called smugness derives from betting: putting his ideas on the line and winning. I think he's the opposite of smug because he's humble enough to put his ideas to the test. Maybe he gloats, but I think we should socially encourage victors gloating (in fair competitions).

The first sentence of the paragraph you quote links to data connecting unemployment to unhappiness.

Summarized by Nietzsche: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how."