Do you bet on Manifold based on textualism or originalism?
resolved May 31

Textualism: according only to the text of the question and description

Originalism: based on the original intent of the market creator (expected resolution)

Manifold rules on resolving markets:

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

Personalism: betting on how the market creator will resolve the market. Text, original intention, character, actual event - are 4 compounds of his final decision how to resolve.

Usually I avoid betting until both are aligned.

I am often burned by being an Originalist— resolution is tightly bound to the textual details!

I cannot tell, likely because this has no answer.

@TracyHarms What do you mean, is the question unclear?

Basically you can imagine a scenario where the wording of the question is somewhat ambiguous. Based strictly on the wording, you believe it should resolve one way, but based on your understanding of the context and the user you expect they will resolve it another way. How do you bet?

@TonyGao I bet to maximize my winnings. So how they actually end up resolving it is what matters. But I don't directly care about their intention, I only care about their intention insofar as it helps me predict how they will resolve the question.

@TomGoldthwait you should vote that in the poll.

But to elaborate, there's two thought processes on how to answer, one is about whether you bet to be "true" or for winnings. But going further on the latter, you have to also consider whether the mods will let that non-textual resolution stand. Essentially I'm asking is how much leeway the mods currently give market creators, and implicitly if the current level is correct or not. If this market gets enough people voting on it I might create another one, something like "Should Manifold users bet based on textualism or originalism".

@TonyGao I'm not voting because I don't feel that my approach fits either category. Words have no fixed inherent meaning, so textualism is nonsense. But originalism is also silly because interpretations naturally change and evolve over time.

When reading a potentially ambiguous question, it's important to go look at comments and build a sense of what sorts of things people are asking about. You need to model the question-writer's original intention, but you also need to model their evolving understanding as the dialogue in the comments slowly settles into something shared.

You also need to understand and model underlying cultural elements that might cause people to feel pressure to resolve certain ways or the sorts of conditions that may end up summoning mod intervention.

@TomGoldthwait Fair enough, although in my view that's originalism, since it describes the expected resolution by the market creator (with caveats). Maybe should have called it intentionalism instead of originalism, but for the inspiration for this poll the creator only created and resolved without interacting with comments.

@TonyGao yeah, so if the wording is ambiguous and there isn't much discussion, my assumption is that the creator just isn't very thoughtful. I mostly prefer not to participate in those markets at all.

@TonyGao I also think that in many cases, the shared community interpretation matters more than the original intention. Community discussion tends to settle into a shared-ish understanding that may or may not align with the original intention. The resolver may then resolve based on their own original intention or the emergent community interpretation.

@TonyGao Ah, I notice that I heavily favor the latter. I was stymied by the suggestion that this is about how they actually think rather than hiw I think they think.