Inspired by this: https://manifold.markets/SteveSokolowski/why-do-you-disagree-that-nonhuman-i
In particular, the requirement of that poll that to claim to reject aliens based on reason, one must have "researched the topic for at least 20 hours by watching whistleblower testimony, reading books, and/or viewing serious, evidence-based documentaries (i.e. excluding Ancient Aliens)"
I currently do not believe aliens have visited Earth. My reasoning for this is mostly logic-based rather than evidence-based, and even at that, it's not very well formed. Honestly, probably the biggest factor is that people I take seriously mostly do not take aliens-on-earth seriously. Anyway, none of that is the point. The point is I'm sceptical, but I have not spent anywhere near the 20 hours requirement that @SteveSokolowski thinks I need in order to reject a hypothesis for any reason other than "ignorance, anxiety, denial, or socialisation".
If I put in the 20 hours, will I think it was worth my time? Note that this market isn't about whether it'll change my mind - if I remain sceptical but I feel I've learned useful and interesting things, it still resolves YES. (But if it changes my mind it definitely resolves YES.) If I think it was a waste of my time, market resolves NO. If I do not spend 20 hours researching it, market resolves NA.
At market close, I will make a decision about whether I'm going to do the 20 hours of research. This decision will be informed by the current market percentage but will probably also have a random element. I'm not sure exactly how I'll run this, but as a rule of thumb, if the market is 60% or higher, I'll almost certainly do the research. If the market is 20% or lower, I almost certainly won't.
Currently I am strongly of the opinion that the research would be a waste of my time. This is a bias that you should factor in. Hopefully if the evidence is really compelling, it'll be compelling enough to shift my current biased opinion.
I won't bet in this market. Market remains open for a week. I don't make any promises about how long it'll take me to do the 20 hours of research, but I hope it won't take too long. I'll take suggestions from commenters on good places to start with the research, if you would like to offer them.
1,000People are also trading
Ok, as said in the description, if the market is below 20% I almost certainly won't do the research. It's at 10% so I'm going to give myself a 1 in 500 chance that I'll do the research. (1 in 500 chosen arbitrarily. I don't really want to do the research if it's not going to be a good use of my time, but I do want traders to be rewarded in expectation for being right, which they wouldn't be if I just decided not to do the research. 1 in 500 is my compromise.)
I'll ask FairlyRandom for a number between 1 and 500. If the number is 69, I'll do the research. Otherwise I will not, and the market resolves NA.
@traders just in case anybody was thinking about it, I won't be persuaded by any last minute swings in the market. I've already made it clear I'm only using the market as a guide, but if it jumps from 20% to 99% in the last few minutes, I'll be taking 20% as a guide, not 99%.
Because the market is only a guide anyway (and because YES/NO resolution doesn't depend on it), I don't think I need to codify what counts as a "last minute swing". I'll know it when I see it.
@DanielFilan My underlying model here is that the reason people believe conspiracy theories is usually that there's some fact where the true explanation is some unintuitive thing, and an easier-to-believe explanation is aliens / Bush doing 9/11 / whatever. So it might be a good place to go to learn counterintuitive stuff.
@DanielFilan I do somewhat enjoy learning about random new things, but not as much as some people I know. I don't have a huge amount of free time and I value that time highly.
But I'm pleased to hear your optimism. Even if I don't get persuaded about the underlying hypothesis, I'm sure I'll learn something interesting!
@DanielFilan I think it's important not to get caught up in the "UFO videos" as much as the actions of the witnesses and government officials.
Some of the videos are simply fraudulent, and you can get bogged down reading points and counterpoints for hours about the ones that aren't fabricated. There are at best no more than five videos that would be worth spending all that time to evaluate. Certainly some of the seminal videos should be viewed, so long as they have the five observables. I do think that there are a lot of true videos out there, but they aren't convincing without other context.
However, the sworn witness testimony and the actions of people involved in the US government are by far the strongest evidence. Listen to what Barack Obama said, then focus on what people are saying and how they are acting. Finally, evaluate what is happening in light of the four possibilities that could explain the current situation in this market, and I'm confident you will find that the other three options can be ruled out by process of elimination:
/SteveSokolowski/what-is-going-on-with-david-gruschs-de3add9e7579
If you do any research, I ask you to track the statistics of datapoints (age of witness, country of witness, amount of episodes per person, political party).
I have a strong suspicion 99% of "evidence" will be from USA (center of conspiracies and cinematography visual effects). Also my mental model of "typical american" would suggest the majotity of witnesses would be Conservative. If that proves true, then it is an argument towards "interpretation of the experience depends on the mindset, not on objective facts".
Have you watched "Corridor" channel on yt? They regularly watch through UFO videos and explain the visual artifacts, that create those illusions. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwVUbPpIRn1RdU2hQLeAEACybz8Tib4IO&si=qJRaUiX6fRaMQSoe
I think you need to be careful about what type of research you perform. Perhaps you should clarify it in the market. It's very easy to get misled by ridiculous anonymous posts on 4chan, for example, or the obviously fake MH370 stuff. And whatever you do, don't go to /r/aliens on reddit.
I would think that looking into Vallee's works, watching the July 26, 2023 hearings, reading about the detailed history of the UAP Disclosure Act, maybe investigating some of the most corroborated sightings like the Phoenix 1997 event, and taking a look at some of the more recent videos like the Nimitz encounter and the Jellyfish videos would be a good start.
It would also be a good idea to read about organized misinformation efforts in regards to this topic, to make it at least somewhat easier to understand what sort of fake data was put out there. I will bet YES because you seem like a person who will take this seriously and not waste the time on the fraudulent stuff.
@SteveSokolowski thanks for the pointers, and for engaging with the market! If I do end up attempting the research, I will definitely be guided by your recommendations.
@Fion I'll be curious to hear whether you are convinced.
As you're reading about the government angle, make sure that when you read what government officials are saying, pay attention to the exact words they use. They use very specific words carefully chosen by lawyers - "no evidence of extraterrestrial origin," (although almost nobody believes these are space aliens) or "unable to locate any programs at this time." Lockheed Martin still "refers all questions about whether they have contacted non-human intelligence to the DoD." Even Grusch and the witnesses on the other side do this.
Most government officials tell the truth, but pay careful attention to what nobody has ever denied.
@SteveSokolowski people usually do not deny Russell's teapot.
Neither government has ever denied the existance of flying vampire platipus. Pay careful attention.
@KongoLandwalker If someone asked me, as the owner of my stock trading business, if I had any non-human craft in the building, I would say NO, not "I'll defer the answer to that question to my customers."
@SteveSokolowski have you read "Harry potter and the methods of rationality"? It shows several times throughout the story the rationalist benefit of saying "I will not answer" instead of "no". It is both strategical benefit (you will not have to switch your answer in the future if anything changes, but still be able not to lie), and it is technically more correct to never deny event with low probability just because they are low probability. Nobody has proved the answer is NO, and it is impossible to prove it is NO in the context. Thus the correct statement would be "We have no evidence to think it is YES". With your building it is technically possible to go through each item and track their history, so NO is fine: it is a testable thing. (Again, until you suppose the existence of the teapot, or the invisible untouchablw dragon. With these apriori possibilities in your head you can just start a new conspiracy theory - like people do. At that point arguments will never work with you.)
It is not a lawyer mentality. It is rationalist mentality.
Third reason not to say NO is the belief system of the not negligible part of USA. You can lose political points if you openly contradict their belief system. It is not their job to teach people to be naturally sceptical, but that is their personal interest to stay on the job for longer. USA has a surprising frequency of doxxing and other unpleasant stuff.
@KongoLandwalker But again, I still take issue with your position because of common sense. None of these officials answer this way when asked about any other issue. "Has your CEO ever had an affair with that politician?" The immediate answer: NO.
The questions being asked aren't mundane things like do you have any tanks in your possession. It's "do you own any alien interdimensional craft at this moment?" Not in the future, right now.
At my company, I have no doubt whatsoever that the answer to that question is NO. There is no legal or public relations risk in saying no, because it's an absurd question to ask of me. I don't need to think twice and carefully mince my words thinking that I might have had alien craft in 1972 and that they might be extraterrestrial, not interdimensional, or maybe some department was working on them but still has them. Why would I even hesitate to answer such a question? You're like the jurors in the Penn State fraternity trial I served on - come on, use common sense when judging whether people are hiding something.
@SteveSokolowski according to your model:
What is the probability a politician hides extraterrestrial life when he refuses to answer direct NO?
What is the probability a politician plays with his conspiracy-loving audiences when he refuses to answer direct NO?
@SteveSokolowski if I am a politician and i crucually need to hide something, isn't it more efficient to say NO? If I hide successfully, nobody will ever know i lied until after 50 years when documents are declassified.
@KongoLandwalker I don't think you're informed about exactly who is saying what.
When we refer to people refusing to deny things, we are talking about appointed officials and private companies. There are no elected officials in a position to deny anything; that's part of the problem. Nobody is accusing elected officials of trying to earn votes by not denying things.
As the original poster of this question is doing, I believe that you need to spend some time deeply informing yourself of the topic, as you are making arguments based on erroneous information.