TL;DR: @bens Let’s grab a beer—no market talk, no pressure, just vibes.

Hey Ben—it’s Friday afternoon, and I’m about to put the old iPhone away, so I probably won’t see your reply for a day or so if you accept my offer for a beer.

One thing I hadn’t thought about—you’re also in D.C., and honestly, with the mishigas and shenanigans that have been permeating throughout this city, especially this last week, maybe you’re feeling a piece of that too. Who knows? Maybe not. But if so, let me just say (and I pinky promise): come grab a beer; it’ll be chill. No pressure about the market. I’ll even leave my 500-slide PowerPoint at home. Let’s do it. It’ll be the kind of random, awkward encounter that’s either genuinely illuminating or just kind of dull—but there’s real upside and basically no downside.

TonyBaloney, I could be wrong, but I suspect your very numerous and lengthy comments might be more persuasive if made much more concise and summarised, perhaps less than a quarter of their current lengths, so that they are more likely to be read enthusiastically in full rather than possibly ignored, skimmed, or read but with frustrated impatience

@TheAllMemeingEye @bens

TL;DR: maybe this is working. maybe not. but whatevs.

——

(Ok. Semi-stepping out of character for a minute.)

You're probably right, but I have my reasons. I’ll say that it should be pretty clear that I might have other motives besides just trying to persuade Ben. (See previous post) Purely for example, what if I’m actually just trying to annoy him and the real game is trying to win mana by betting NO? Or maybe I’m setting up a situation where I profit either way—if Ben stays firm, I win mana, and if he flips to YES, I win the narrative and Ben grows as a person. That’s kind of a fun dilemma! Or maybe I’ve got a side bet with a friend, and the challenge is whether I can write a long essay every day on Ben’s market, or completely take over someone else’s market? Who knows? And while this might not be a winning strategy within the confines of Bens final decision, <not really> it’s working like gangbusters outside of that. </not really> In any case, I at least enjoy playing around with this ambiguity about where I’m coming from. To me, there’s something especially vexing about not knowing your adversary’s motivations—though maybe “adversary” isn’t quite the right word here.

But for argument’s sake, let’s assume my only motivation is to persuade Ben to resolve YES. Writing long posts every day might not be optimal—but I’m kind of of the mind that, when it comes to persuasion, sheer repetition actually works. Hearing something every day—consistently—has a weirdly cumulative effect. I’m always surprised by how often people are persuaded just by hearing the same thing over and over again with minor variations. Take politics.

Also, I’m a reader. I’d rather engage with a 500-word post than a short, glib one-liner. Some things do take nuance. I’m not claiming my posts are bursting with depth, but I do enjoy writing them. There’s a strange humor I’m aiming for, and a voice I find fun to explore. I also find it interesting to figure out the best way to get AI to write what I want it to write in my general tone with as little effort as possible. This takes trial and error, but we’re getting there.

And sometimes, unconventional, irritating strategies just work. This one might not. But it doesn’t take much effort on my part to keep showing up and seeing where it goes.

I mean, this is the lowest of low stakes poker. There is no real risk in this environment. You might as well try unconventional approaches. Ben invited this kind of thing to happen.

So… yeah. That’s where I’m coming from.

(Back to scene)

@bens, not sure if you’re reading these anymore because it looks like you more or less checked out of this market, which is interesting because it was made by you and is about you. But I’ll be at World of Beer this weekend. For real. Happy to buy the first round. You mentioned that you wanted to blog about this if something interesting happened. Dude, I promise to show you something that you won’t be able to scrub out of your mind! This is a real offer! Be a scout! Be curious!

@TonyBaloney hmmm, I'm not sure which/where World of Beer is? I'm going to a meadery in Rockville this evening to watch some live music, though? I also am finding it hard to notice individual manifold notifications, so you're welcome to DM me on here or twitter or email or something?

TonyBaloney, it looks like you're throwing arguments for YES at the wall as fast as you can to see if anything sticks? I would like to persuade you that this can only backfire. It's soldier mindset rather than scout mindset and only the latter can change minds. Also I'm confused that you don't seem to have traded in this market?

@dreev @bens

Thanks for the comment, Daniel. Perfect timing—I wasn’t sure what I’d say today. First off, I just placed my first bet on this market.

Let me address my motivations before moving on to the scout vs. soldier framing. For what it's worth, I just devoted a not insignificant amount of my mana on Ben resolving NO. But to be honest, I really don’t care what Ben decides. Like, truly. My reason for joining this market is different. Consider this: over the years I have never been a heavy user of Manifold. I  only have a handful of illiquid markets, and hardly ever bet more than 50 mana. Frankly, though I think the platform has promise, I’m losing interest in it (especially after Ian floated that $25/month feature fee), and I wouldn’t be shocked if Manifold isn’t around in a couple of years. I don’t know Ben personally, and I haven’t participated in any of the many very similar meta-markets here. Why am I suddenly writing long posts every day for this particular market when dozens just like it exist? Why am I out of nowhere offering Ben a beer? From an outside perspective, it’s reasonable to suspect my motivation goes beyond Ben resolving “YES” to win a bunch of mana. Maybe I'm blogging about this too. Maybe I have a side bet with another party. Maybe I'm just an incredibly bored performance artist. 

(My beer offer still stands: I’d love to buy Ben a drink if he’s truly committed to curiosity.)

As for scout vs. soldier—I’m not entirely sold on that framing. It’s a neat mental model in some cases but falls apart when you lean on it too hard. I even had to look up the definitions just to make sure I haven't missed something: scouts “explore” by trying different strategies; soldiers “defend” one approach no matter what. If there’s a deeper nuance I’m missing, let me know. But even accepting that model, the basic point is: Ben’s the soldier here. Sure, I’ve been steadfast on “YES,” but that’s literally the game I’m playing—for some strange reason. Within this structure, trying new angles feels more scout-like (though I admit using these buzzwords makes me feel like I’ve binged too many TED Talks).

I asked ChatGPT to analyze the thread, and here’s the summary:

Soldier Mindset Indicators:
• I persistently push “YES” with humor, hypotheticals, and personal appeals.
• I challenge Ben’s commitment to “NO,” suggesting a lack of conviction.
• My approach applies pressure to elicit a specific outcome.

Scout Mindset Indicators:
• I seek clarification on what would convince Ben to switch.
• I acknowledge the market’s subjectivity and engage in dialogue about persuasion parameters.
• I adapt my approach based on his responses, showing openness to new information.

So, while I’ve been soldier-ish in motivation, the technique of exploring new tactics is scout-ish. To me (though I acknowledge that this is the market’s premise), Ben is the one in soldier mode. The real question is whether he’ll adopt enough curiosity—enough scout mindset—to accept a free beer from some rando on the Internet.

@TonyBaloney Huh, Ben seems thoroughly scout-mindset on this to me. He's carefully laid out the parameters of the market, diligently offered examples of the kinds of things that would change his mind, etc.

PS: Oh, wow, I see you now have a huge stake in NO. Maybe I actually persuaded you that your seemingly YES-directed efforts where pushing more in the NO direction. Mostly I remain baffled by your motivations but I guess it's like you say, just a fun game you took up.

@dreev@bens

I’m between sets at Karaoke so I can’t write that long. I’m singing Pink Pony Club in about five minutes, so pardon my brevity.

I think maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on some points here. Again, not a huge fan of the scout v. soldier terminology, but Ben was more or less explicit that he wouldn’t offer examples of things that would sway him, providing only two “extreme” examples. Also, I feel like I could provide a fairly exhaustive list of generally relevant questions about the parameters of the market that Ben did not answer, aside from a slightly oversimplified explanation that “it is what it is.” There’s a reasonable argument that acting as a soldier is precisely what he should be doing, which is valid, but I wouldn’t describe his role in the market as particularly diligent or forthcoming.

As for my strategy. I don’t know. It’s hard to tell. I will say that the price of him resolving yes was slowly increasing for the past week or so (before I temporarily pounded the market down with my big dumb NO purchase). I’m absolutely not claiming credit for this increase. However, I think if we’re of the mind that the market is more or less efficient, it seems odd then to argue that my attempts, which were by far the biggest on the actual manifold web page, were clearly counterproductive. I mean, the price of the market is probably our best gauge as to the chances. The market was bouncing around a lot when I started but was somewhere around 17-22 at the beginning, and when I pushed it down it was at 25. Probably just noise, but my point is that it seems odd to say that my line of attack was clearly counterproductive.

Ummm, sorry, but not sure your argument persuaded me. TBH being the biggest no holder was something I was planning for a while, and that interaction was a good opportunity. No hard feelings though. I’m always a fan of the give and take and appreciate the comment.

I will say this. I was once at this dinner with a lot of bmw ad execs. It was very boring, but during a lull in the conversation I heard some guy say to his buddy, “wait, do you think there are really people that can’t tell between the 7 series and the 8?” That line always struck me. Sometimes when you devote a lot of time to something, you forget that most people really have no idea what you’re talking about, and it inhibits your ability to properly gauge the situation and see “reality” — as in your analogy with the scouts and soldiers. The ad-man was baffled by the hypothetical cluelessness of someone who couldn’t distinguish the series 7 from 8. And I think if you think a lot about this platform, my motives are baffling too. However, there’s a lot of perfectly reasonable explanations for my actions.

For the record, not that it matters, but I do not think I characterized this as a fun game I took up.

@dreev @bens Pink Pony Club is a very good choice for Karaoke. Lots of sing a long peotential, just prepare for the high note before the chorus.

Hey @bens

Let me ask you something—how come you don’t have any NO shares?

I get why a judge might avoid holding shares in a market they’re resolving, to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. But here, the whole premise is that you’re trying to resolve it NO. That’s not a conflict—that’s the point. So shouldn’t you actually be holding NO shares? Maybe even be the top holder?

In other markets where judges hold shares, it’s often to motivate themselves—think of something like the “walk 100,000 steps in a day” kind of market. The bet keeps them honest, keeps them committed. So your lack of a position here—despite saying you’re aiming for NO—almost suggests the opposite: a lack of motivation to stick with NO.

And that absence raises a question. Are you keeping your options open because you’re thinking about flipping to YES eventually? Not holding any shares gives you a kind of plausible deniability. But ironically, it actually makes things seem less consistent, not more.

If this market is about signaling conviction and standing by your reasoning, then why not show it with skin in the game? Right now, the silence in your portfolio is saying more than it should.

@bens Here’s what might be the worst-case scenario for you:

What if no one tries to convince you of anything at Manifest? What if nobody really cares, big moment happens, your attention getting market falls flat—no spectacle, no surprise—and instead you resolve NO with little fanfare, and the only thing that comes of it is… me. A random guy you’ve never met, sending you messages every day, indefinitely. That’s bleak. That’s not drama, that’s just purgatory.

Honestly, I think you should resolve this YES as soon as possible.

@bens

Last night I had this weird dream: you’d scored VIP tickets to a Ray Kurzweil vs. Thomas Friedman debate on the future of technology at Manifest, and you were absolutely buzzing to go. But at the door, the bouncer wouldn’t let you in unless you’d resolved YES. So you did—no choice—but by the time you got through the crowd, you were so wound up that you couldn’t even enjoy a single insight. I really hope it doesn’t play out like that. You deserve to say YES on your own terms and savor the moment.

@bens Hey. If I snagged tickets to manifest could we do this discussion in real time? Would that be easier for you? I noticed you haven’t been so active lately and maybe this kind of persuasion is better one on one. It looks like there’s still tons of tickets available. I can’t guarantee I’d be able to make it though. I gotta check with my sister, but if she can watch my lizards, do you think you’d rather have this debate there? IRL?

@TonyBaloney

1) Did you actually have that dream?

2) Sure, I'd be happy to talk at Manifest, but don't conditionalize your attendance on that XD

@bens

1) I have a lot of very vivid, intense dreams.

2) Not sure if my sister can watch my lizards. Also I heard through the grapevine that Allan Lichtman might not show up, and tbh, aside talking to you, that would’ve been a big draw for me. But hey, what if I bought you a beer? This weekend? I have a PowerPoint presentation on deciding YES that I think is better done in person.

@TonyBaloney ... do you ... live in DC?

@bens YES!

@TonyBaloney have you been to any of the forecasting meetups?! Have we already met?

@bens No. I have not been to any forecasting meetups. I do not believe we have ever met.

Ben!

Circling back: you suggested in your last response that you wanted to show people you could be convinced, and even hinted that Manifest might be the moment it happens. To me, it feels like you’ve set up a temptation just to savor yielding to it—and yes, it does sound like fun: the tension, the release, and whatnot. Maybe there’s something cool and outlandish planned to persuade you. Who knows?

But I’d advise against waiting for Manifest. You already have two concrete offers on the table: my $100 GiveWell pledge and the Vietnam charity run. Holding out might let you chase a bigger, zanier haul, but you risk getting swept up in some flash-in-the-pan stunt that only waters down whatever meaning this market could have.

And the way Manifold has been going lately—let’s be honest—has been a succession of false starts and wasted potential. What began as a model for betting on anything, improving truth discovery, and giving money to worthy causes has slowly devolved into navel-gazing meta markets dominated by a shrinking cohort puckishly conducting insider trading under an ever-thinner veneer of intellectual rigor. As one of the site’s best traders (is “legend” overblown?), do you really want to aid in that—or make this market mean something at all?

Look, I don’t want to be a Debbie Downer. Mirroring dollar/crypto based markets and betting fake money on inconsequential things can be a might rush. I get it. (I can’t see why this site wouldn’t be the next 抖音.) But its real promise is so much greater than “tits vs. ass” insider games. Resolve YES now, and you turn this half-baked thought experiment into, at the very least, a genuine social good—showing that Manifold can be about more than fleeting in-jokes. (Remember when you could turn your mana into charity? Can you still do that?) Of course, you could hold out for an even larger drive, and I’d tip my hat if you do. But right now, pressing YES on a guaranteed donation is the rational—and frankly more interesting—move.

It really seems like you’re planning to give in. You’ve hinted at what would convince you. Your oldest friend from high school even bet against you. That wager is like Chekhov’s gun: it only makes sense if it actually goes off. YES is a foregone conclusion. The real question is: will you be satisfied with how you give in? Would you rather get roofied during an after-hours orgy by Faith Popcorn in a Tenderloin flophouse, or do some clear—but less humorous—good in the world?

@bens Wouldn’t seeing this irl feel so much better than whatever will inevitably happen?

Everyone calm down there's already a plan to convince him

@Joshua patriots in control?

@bens Sorry it’s been a while; my goal is to interact with this everyday, but I don’t roll on Shabbos. Could you help clarify the rules? Maybe I’m being too literal (wouldn’t be the first time), yet I care about markets and think tight, concise, yet coherent rules matter.

Trying really hard.

From your ceiling—$10 k to charity or roughly a month of effort—I get that a month counts as “really hard.” But so could a day. I need more world-building on where the floor sits.

On the length (and AI-ness) of my posts.

These notes may read long or AI-generated, but LET ME EXPLAIN! I dictate because typing is hard for me. I then have an artificial assistant rearrange and clean up the transcript. Occasionally this assistant tweaks and changes something in a way that amuses me, but rarely. I think a close reading will reveal that it’s very unlikely this is purely (or even mostly) AI generated content, em dashes aside. I am, for the most part, a human. Still, that raises a rule question: can you simply ignore arguments you don’t like? It seems out of step with the spirit of the market. Like this is ONLY for you and your buddies and unsettling arguments from strangers are free to be dismissed rather than grappled with.

Summing up

1. We know the ceiling of “trying really hard”—what’s the floor, and why not say? You mention that if you told people what would convince you, that would defeat the purpose. But then you told people that 10k would convince you. That seems like a contradiction to me.

2. What world are we in? If the goal is to resolve NO, why? I realize this is a rephrasing of the first point, but the bot insisted that this was a second point.

3. Do the rules actually matter, or is this just a carefree goof where market rules are optional? Is that what you meant by tagging the market fun? Again. I’m sometimes not so good with social cues, especially online, so I would appreciate the clarification

4. Are you allowed to ignore arguments? If so, woof—my strategy may need a rethink. I wish you had mentioned that in the rules.

Thanks for clearing this up for me. Have a blessed Mother’s Day!

@TonyBaloney Hey! I've just been busy the last few days, but there are a few considerations:

• I don't want to do the work of the market for them, I don't think that I would be "persuaded to resolve it YES" if I laid out explicitly what things would make me resolve YES and then told people to do them. I gave a couple of extreme examples to demonstrate that I'm not just infinitely stubborn. Like, I obviously could be persuaded, given the right conditions.

• Manifest is in early June and I'm guessing that there will be a lot of opportunities for me to be persuaded there.

• Yes, I am trying to respond to everyone but that can quickly become an extreme kind of an asymmetrical burden for a market creator, if you think about it.

• This market is ultimately supposed to be fun, but you're welcome to take it as seriously as you see fit! I'll probably blog about this if cool stuff happens over the course of this market!

@bens Oh man, eggs on my face—I completely misread your market’s premise. I thought you were playing the part of a “100 IQ Normie”—the figure whose sole job is to default to NO unless genuinely persuaded, just like the Eliezer post you cite.* That misunderstanding is why the whole setup felt so confusing. I can admit it now, but as a solid 100 IQ Normie myself, I did feel a bit offended.

But if I’ve got it right, there’s no AI in the box—you’re not role-playing some hypothetical gatekeeper, saving the world from potential ruin. . . or utopia?! This market is just you, Ben, seeing whether the crowd can hit the price point in your head. Correct? So quibbling over your exact motives for sticking to NO misses the point: you’re really testing if the market can discover that arbitrary threshold—somewhere between it’s an orphanage run or a $10 k donation, and you're supposed motivation isn't to keep your job, or save the world, or what have you. There's no scenario.

TBH, I think you’re tipping your hand by calling a $10 k donation an “extreme” persuasion example. If $10 k is extreme, one would assume your real tipping point is an order of magnitude lower. It almost seems like you actually want to be persuaded—and that your true motivation is just to generate some fun fodder for a night out at Manifest while getting f’ed up with Philip Tetlock.

*Writing this now, I just realize that Yudkowsky was probably suggesting </not really>that a 100 IQ Normie would be better than someone more intelligent and unusual, and that intelligence and curiosity was probably a shortcoming for this kind of job.

@TonyBaloney is Philip Tetlock going to Manifest? lol

@bens F that was fast. . . . I don't know. I heard he parties pretty hard.