This question is inspired by https://manifold.markets/NicoDelon/overunderrated-living-intellectuals?r=Q2hyaXNDYW1lcm9u

I think this is an excellent market design for questions where objective resolutions are very challenging.

Each answer is considered a health benefit by a substantial fraction of the population.

I will follow the same standards as the question linked above. The market resolves to a poll on March 31st, 2024. The market will reflect how overrated (or underrated) Manifold thinks a given health benefit is, rather than how much Manifold likes/dislikes them.

A health benefit being overrated will be reflected by a >50% probability; underrated by a <50% probability; properly rated by a 50% probability e.g., if Not Smoking is 20%, then Manifold considers not to smoke as much more of a health benefit than the general public.

I will allow submitted answers until January 31st, 2024 and I reserve the right to disqualify submitted answers if they don't meet the standard of a substantial fraction of the population thinks of it as a health benefit. I put modifiers such as "low", "not", and "high" over some answers where I thought there might be directional ambiguity. Please be careful of this.

At market close, I will create a poll with the list of answers. For each option, participants will be able to rate them from 0-100 (underrated to overrated with properly rated as the neutral/50 point). I will later resolve this market according to the poll results.