Sam Kriss recently published an article in Harpers, which quotes Scott Alexander as stating to himself "I will open the crackers so you will have crackers and be happy" at a party. Scott disputes this, claiming he recalls it being addressed to his child.
If any third source at the party corroborates or denies the quote and/or the context it was uttered in by this Sunday, the market resolves. If not, I will open a poll and resolve the market accordingly.
Update 2026-02-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market resolves based on the context in which the quote was uttered, not just whether the words were spoken. For example, if evidence emerges that contradicts the claimed context (such as the children already being in bed), the market would resolve No.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ762 | |
| 2 | Ṁ132 | |
| 3 | Ṁ48 | |
| 4 | Ṁ39 | |
| 5 | Ṁ22 |
Market resolves yes in accordance with this poll: https://manifold.markets/DylanRichardson/was-i-will-open-the-crackers-so-you-RCCqtE5qNS?r=RHlsYW5SaWNoYXJkc29u
I wasn't able to find any relevant updates in comments on recent ACX posts to resolve otherwise.
@DylanRichardson Far too few responses to close the poll. You'd be better off just using your judgement here unless you can get 50+ responses. This was always subjective anyways.
@WilliamGunn you may be right, but we don't even have 50+ holders on the market - but regardless, this is both supported by my personal judgment and by the plurality of Yes holders.
It would have probably been simpler if I set the numbers of holders as the resolution criteria in the first place. Maybe that would have messed up the incentives too much though, I'm not sure.
@WilliamGunn according to his first post, he doesn't have a memory of the occasion in question, his interpretation was post-hoc. Not being a memory, I personally don't put the burden of proof on Kriss. By contrast, Kriss claims it was his recollection.
My own thinking is that the quote is on its face much less remarkable and noteworthy than in actuality and it was Kriss's literary flair that made it stand out in context, eg the stuff about "acolytes" and etc. That's what gave Scott the sense of unreality.
@DylanRichardson Having read my share of similar articles about rationalists, and about Scott in particular, I have a strong prior that the journalist wanted to write a hate-read, thus I give much less credibility to his recollection. Hey, it's your question, do whatever you want, but maybe also ask if your priors about articles written about rationalists could use some updating.
@WilliamGunn since we are mutual fans of Scott, I'll recommend returning to his post on the media rarely lying. I think this is an exemplar case: it may be deceptive (I don't personally think so) but even if so, that doesn't make it false.
@kmajc I thought of that as falling under "accuracy", but good point, I should specify. Since this has just opened, I added that to the description.
I'll use the word "context" instead of "adressed" as that seems less subjective. Ex: if someone new comes forward claiming the kids were already in bed at that point, it resolves no.