Comment by xpe

With the exception of financial or economic analysis [1], relatively few journalists get paid to write with quantitative nuance, much less awareness of probability. These articles are rarely written to prioritize harm or predict the future. Instead, everything feels like an emergency. [2]

There is a large disconnect between the amount of combined effort and thinking that goes into prediction markets versus the glibness of which so many people write about them. It is almost as if people lose the plot — in capitalist countries, many financial flows are heavily informed by futures markets which share many of the same characteristics as prediction markets.

[1]: also: fraud investigations or other areas where rigor is expected

[2]: Even the better sources such as The Atlantic are somewhat advertising fueled, driven towards “engaging” content, prioritizing interesting ideas rather than practical relevance, dumbed down to maybe a high school reading level, hardly a trace of showing one’s methods. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any backing analysis in the form of a spreadsheet or (heaven forbid!) source code of a simulation. This is not meant to point fingers at writers or journalists; we just have to recognize the context they live in. If we want detailed and careful analysis, we need to find ways to build system systems that provide it. What we have now is a joke compared to what is possible.