This is the first post in what will become a regular feature on this blog: A look back at previous posts that are related to newly-discovered content.
Further support for prediction markets.
Trading on the Wisdom of Crowds (Wall Street Journal)
How accurate are prediction markets in U.S. elections? (Yahoo! Answers)
Earlier: How to predict the future
---
What are your odds of dying from a given injury?
Odds of Dying (National Safety Council)
Earlier: Suicide hotlines
---
Economists, on the question of organ markets as a solution to the organ donor shortage.
Human Organs for Sale, Legally, in ... Which Country? (Freakonomics Blog)
Financial Compensation for Organ Donors is Working (Marginal Revolution)
Earlier: Kidneys for sale?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 29
Wednesday, April 23
The more things change...
All change? (Economist)
Without question, liberals in the U.S. have (for years) been desperate for the departure of George W. Bush from the presidency, confident that a change in leadership will turn the country around. This Economist article warns that at least in the area of foreign policy, the likelihood is that the next President (regardless of who it is) will not make drastic policy changes, nor should they.
A highly opinionated, thought-provoking piece.
Without question, liberals in the U.S. have (for years) been desperate for the departure of George W. Bush from the presidency, confident that a change in leadership will turn the country around. This Economist article warns that at least in the area of foreign policy, the likelihood is that the next President (regardless of who it is) will not make drastic policy changes, nor should they.
A highly opinionated, thought-provoking piece.
Saturday, April 12
How to predict the future
Betting to Improve the Odds (New York Times)
In my opinion, one of the greatest developments to come out of the Internet is the ability to effectively harness the knowledge of a wide variety of people (also known as "wisdom of the crowds") for projects such as Wikipedia. With Wikipedia, the goal is to organize and share information, but the wisdom of the crowds can be used for many other purposes.
This New York Times article discusses "prediction markets," in which individuals can essentially place bets on the outcome of a particular event (such as "Will Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee for President?"). Placing bets ("trades") in a prediction market is kind of like stock trading, except that the "share price" stays between 0 and 100 and reflects the current probability (in the minds of the traders) that the event will occur. In the Hillary Clinton example, her market at Intrade is currently trading at 15.4, meaning that traders believe her current probability of clinching the nomination to be 15.4%. If a trader thinks the likelihood is greater than 15.4%, they can buy shares (hoping the market will go up), and if it does they will make money. Eventually, all markets resolve at 100 (if the event happens) or 0 (if it does not happen), but in the meantime the share price is determined purely by trading activity.
I'm a big fan of prediction markets because the traders have an incentive (i.e. making money) to research the most likely outcome of events, and thus as long as the markets are being actively traded, the markets should demonstrate the probability of an outcome occurring much more accurately than polling, individual research studies, or any other predictive tool. Furthermore, those individuals with insider information and/or expert knowledge about these events have the greatest incentive to participate in prediction markets, which should further increase the accuracy of the markets.
The Times article describes how prediction markets are now being used internally by corporations as a way to improve their forecasting, such as predicting whether a new product will launch on time. As long as there are incentives (such as money or prizes) for predicting outcomes correctly, the "wisdom of the crowds" should indeed shine through in the market activity.
Legitimate concerns do exist about prediction markets, such as the possibility that someone could profit from participating in a market in which they can determine the outcome, or other types of market manipulation. As well, there are markets that could be considered tasteless, such as the Pentagon's failed Policy Analysis Market (in which bets could be placed on the likelihood of terrorist attacks) or the Celebrity Dead Pool (in which bets are placed on who will die this year).
Regardless, I have no doubt that prediction markets are here to stay, and will increasingly be used to tap our collective wisdom. And as long as participation increases, incentives remain, and systems are put in place to prevent fraud, prediction markets should only become more and more accurate.
In my opinion, one of the greatest developments to come out of the Internet is the ability to effectively harness the knowledge of a wide variety of people (also known as "wisdom of the crowds") for projects such as Wikipedia. With Wikipedia, the goal is to organize and share information, but the wisdom of the crowds can be used for many other purposes.
This New York Times article discusses "prediction markets," in which individuals can essentially place bets on the outcome of a particular event (such as "Will Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee for President?"). Placing bets ("trades") in a prediction market is kind of like stock trading, except that the "share price" stays between 0 and 100 and reflects the current probability (in the minds of the traders) that the event will occur. In the Hillary Clinton example, her market at Intrade is currently trading at 15.4, meaning that traders believe her current probability of clinching the nomination to be 15.4%. If a trader thinks the likelihood is greater than 15.4%, they can buy shares (hoping the market will go up), and if it does they will make money. Eventually, all markets resolve at 100 (if the event happens) or 0 (if it does not happen), but in the meantime the share price is determined purely by trading activity.
I'm a big fan of prediction markets because the traders have an incentive (i.e. making money) to research the most likely outcome of events, and thus as long as the markets are being actively traded, the markets should demonstrate the probability of an outcome occurring much more accurately than polling, individual research studies, or any other predictive tool. Furthermore, those individuals with insider information and/or expert knowledge about these events have the greatest incentive to participate in prediction markets, which should further increase the accuracy of the markets.
The Times article describes how prediction markets are now being used internally by corporations as a way to improve their forecasting, such as predicting whether a new product will launch on time. As long as there are incentives (such as money or prizes) for predicting outcomes correctly, the "wisdom of the crowds" should indeed shine through in the market activity.
Legitimate concerns do exist about prediction markets, such as the possibility that someone could profit from participating in a market in which they can determine the outcome, or other types of market manipulation. As well, there are markets that could be considered tasteless, such as the Pentagon's failed Policy Analysis Market (in which bets could be placed on the likelihood of terrorist attacks) or the Celebrity Dead Pool (in which bets are placed on who will die this year).
Regardless, I have no doubt that prediction markets are here to stay, and will increasingly be used to tap our collective wisdom. And as long as participation increases, incentives remain, and systems are put in place to prevent fraud, prediction markets should only become more and more accurate.
Saturday, March 22
Nuclear power, reconsidered
As Nuclear Waste Languishes, Expense to U.S. Rises (New York Times)
Due primarily to concerns about energy independence and global warming, there has been an increased debate in the United States about nuclear power and its role in our energy future. Although the many of the 2008 Presidential candidates have expressed support for increasing the usage of nuclear power, the ongoing problems with Yucca Mountain and other waste disposal issues make me hesitant to endorse such plans. It seems, quite simply, that the problems associated with nuclear power have never been fully resolved, with each generation of scientists and politicians trying to push the problems onto the next generation, hoping that they will be the ones to figure out comprehensive solutions.
Due primarily to concerns about energy independence and global warming, there has been an increased debate in the United States about nuclear power and its role in our energy future. Although the many of the 2008 Presidential candidates have expressed support for increasing the usage of nuclear power, the ongoing problems with Yucca Mountain and other waste disposal issues make me hesitant to endorse such plans. It seems, quite simply, that the problems associated with nuclear power have never been fully resolved, with each generation of scientists and politicians trying to push the problems onto the next generation, hoping that they will be the ones to figure out comprehensive solutions.
Monday, March 3
The future of voting :(
One way not to conduct Internet voting (The Risks Digest)
Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early (The Onion)
As the Internet and technology become more and more ingrained into our daily lives, it's inevitable that there will be an increased demand for Internet voting as part of our elections. Certainly, Internet voting could deliver both cost savings (for the government) and convenience (for the voter); it would seem to be a technology worth exploring.
I was curious to hear that Democrats Abroad, the organization that represents Democrats living outside the U.S., was holding a "Global Primary" (which awards actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention) in which Internet voting was offered as an option. While the mainstream news focused on Obama's decisive win in the Global Primary, I focused my attention on the technology, and was not surprised to find that the "whole process was neither secure nor well run".
Voting technology in the U.S. continues to disappointment me, lagging leaps and bounds behind other high-tech industries that show evidence of constant innovation. Thankfully, the solutions are out there, and I am hopeful that all levels of government will develop the political will to ensure that our elections are both secure and accurate.
In the meantime, the "Onion News Network" delivered one of the funniest satires of our electoral process that I have ever seen.
Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early (The Onion)
As the Internet and technology become more and more ingrained into our daily lives, it's inevitable that there will be an increased demand for Internet voting as part of our elections. Certainly, Internet voting could deliver both cost savings (for the government) and convenience (for the voter); it would seem to be a technology worth exploring.
I was curious to hear that Democrats Abroad, the organization that represents Democrats living outside the U.S., was holding a "Global Primary" (which awards actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention) in which Internet voting was offered as an option. While the mainstream news focused on Obama's decisive win in the Global Primary, I focused my attention on the technology, and was not surprised to find that the "whole process was neither secure nor well run".
Voting technology in the U.S. continues to disappointment me, lagging leaps and bounds behind other high-tech industries that show evidence of constant innovation. Thankfully, the solutions are out there, and I am hopeful that all levels of government will develop the political will to ensure that our elections are both secure and accurate.
In the meantime, the "Onion News Network" delivered one of the funniest satires of our electoral process that I have ever seen.
Friday, February 22
The downfall of Romney?
What Is It About Mormonism? (New York Times Magazine)
I have always found it to be strange that even among my most open-minded peers, disdain for Mormons (or at least a wholesale rejection of their beliefs) is commonplace, and jokes about the Mormon faith and culture are accepted far more casually than they would be if the topic was race or gender. Given these personal experiences, I was surprised how well Mitt Romney did (at least for a while) on the Presidential campaign trail, and even more surprised how little attention was paid in the mainstream press to the challenges any Mormon candidate for President would face in this climate.
I was glad, then, to see this article in the New York Times Magazine, which helped me to better understand the history of the Mormon church (better known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and how views about church members have evolved in this country over the last two centuries.
I have always found it to be strange that even among my most open-minded peers, disdain for Mormons (or at least a wholesale rejection of their beliefs) is commonplace, and jokes about the Mormon faith and culture are accepted far more casually than they would be if the topic was race or gender. Given these personal experiences, I was surprised how well Mitt Romney did (at least for a while) on the Presidential campaign trail, and even more surprised how little attention was paid in the mainstream press to the challenges any Mormon candidate for President would face in this climate.
I was glad, then, to see this article in the New York Times Magazine, which helped me to better understand the history of the Mormon church (better known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and how views about church members have evolved in this country over the last two centuries.
Friday, January 11
State of the Union
The Mac is back (Economist)
The Comeback Kid, part two (Economist)
There is an absolute deluge of media surrounding this year's Presidential race, and I expect the pace of news will not slow until the nominees for each party have been all but decided. These two articles provide a smart analysis of how each party's candidates are currently stacking up, with typical Economist wit and flare -- and are a great way to cut through all the fluff coverage that's out there.
Earlier: Elections we can trust
The Comeback Kid, part two (Economist)
There is an absolute deluge of media surrounding this year's Presidential race, and I expect the pace of news will not slow until the nominees for each party have been all but decided. These two articles provide a smart analysis of how each party's candidates are currently stacking up, with typical Economist wit and flare -- and are a great way to cut through all the fluff coverage that's out there.
Earlier: Elections we can trust
Sunday, December 23
Elections we can trust
Ohio Elections Official Calls Machines Flawed (New York Times)
It has become increasingly well-known and accepted that the electronic voting machines many states have relied on are just a sad piece of technology. Those who have studied these machines have known for years that many popular models of these machines are both unreliable and insecure, but election officials have long ignored the available evidence, and the public has been left with election results that are literally unverifiable.
This New York Times opinion piece from January 2007 has an excellent history of how the tide has turned in favor of verifiable election results, mostly due to the work of a successful grassroots reform movement.
It has become increasingly well-known and accepted that the electronic voting machines many states have relied on are just a sad piece of technology. Those who have studied these machines have known for years that many popular models of these machines are both unreliable and insecure, but election officials have long ignored the available evidence, and the public has been left with election results that are literally unverifiable.
This New York Times opinion piece from January 2007 has an excellent history of how the tide has turned in favor of verifiable election results, mostly due to the work of a successful grassroots reform movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
