This is inspired by @firstuserhere's market /firstuserhere/what-do-you-believe-that-few-other
Less than a day after it was created, the new option for unlinked free response questions was created. Since that market is meant to gauge what people think on a bunch of independent questions, the unlinked format would have worked better for it, so I decided to make one myself (with permission).
The only difference between this market and the original is the market type and what options are on it. Like with his, this never resolves, it is just a way to see what Manifold thinks of each belief.
Submit any belief that you think is controversial or non-mainstream, especially one that is novel or interesting. Then bet on the options based on whether you agree or disagree with each opinion.
Submitting an answer doesn't mean you believe in it. You can submit an answer you don't believe in to see what others think about it.
You could also buy YES if you think its underpriced and will likely become more popular, doesn't have to indicate belief.
If you submitted an option to @firstuserhere's market before this one was created, and you'd like it to be added, just ask me and I'll submit it for you. I'll probably also do this for people who submit options to his market afterwards, I just included the "before" limitation so that I can't be forced to spend infinite mana.
1,000People are also trading
Reincarnation actually makes sense if you consider the fact that you were already incarnated once.
If before you were born is the same epistemic state as after you are dead (simply non existence), then you already have one instance of evidence that non-existence leads to existence, and you can’t experience not existing.
@PlasmaBallin this seems way to vague to even be a claim. Some racial differencs are obviously true (e.g. "people with African ancestry typically have darker skin than most other ethnicities"), so the question is where do you draw the line on which theories of racial differences count as "scientific racism".
Using "Racism" in the description as a boo word isn't really a solution - afaict it means "the bad/unreasonable theories that are motivated by prejudice are bad", which is tautological.
@nick I don't see how more widespread bitcoin adoption is going to make that a certainly, or even more likely. Also, I'm not even convinced that Bitcoin will become mainstream
I made this option to see if the reason dream analysis isn't that low is because people actually believe in dream analysis, or if it's because people don't think it has to be based on anything real in order to be a legitimate means of gaining personal insight. (This is, of course, based on the assumption that no one here thinks astrology is real, which I've made a separate option to test.)
My thought: a rorschach test is a legitimate means of gaining personal insight. Dreams are kind of like a rorschach test, in that they're kind of based on connections your brain makes when less constrained than normal by definitive sense input, so you may have access to things your conscious mind isnt trying to think about. Astrology is, like, saying things about you based on your birthday, which does not seem similar?
I dunno about highly confident statements about what a particular dream means, but "you constantly dream of failing at things, in ways that wouldn't actually happen ---> you have a fear of failing at things, and it's irrational" seems like a fair guess, and those are the sort of things I come up with when I introspect about my dreams. I "believe in" that kind of dream analysis, not whatever Freud or Jung or whoever would have done.
@equinoxhq I guess it depends on how you interpret the option, since I was thinking of the type of thing Freud does when betting it down.
@ShakedKoplewitz I don't think quantity is quality for AI art. If anything, it's a form of anti-quality. If AI art was very rare, it wouldn't bother people so much, but if you get a bunch of AI generated images when you try to Google something real, that makes your search results worse. So the AI images can be thought of as having negative quality.
@PlasmaBallin it depends on what you want. My usual non-passive use for art is to try to illustrate a concept I just thought up. So I can look up something vaguely similar (usually I won't find anything too close), or generate AI art for it (which will usually be flawed but much closer to the idea in my head). In principle I could probably look up a human artist with the matching style and pay for a commission, but that's high-effort and expense and I wouldn't actually do it much. So in terms of having the ability to meet everyday art needs, AI already does better than humans.
(Music is similar - I'm sure listening to a live show is in many ways better than listening to a YouTube recording of that song, but the quantity and availability of online music mean that it still wins out overall).