First, some forecasters turn out to be really good. What often happens then is people seek out their opinions in advance. That’s positive.
Second, once bets are made, Bigwigs might change tack midstream. This is probably what political candidates will do more of going forward: “Polls say that we’re tied, but prediction markets show we’re way behind. We need to change strategy.”
Imagine how much “truth serum” prediction markets would inject into our little wonky corner of the world. They tell Bigwigs what they don’t want to hear, the truth nobody in their inner circle will say (even if they think it).
For a one-time charitable investment of $10 million, a big donor could create liquidity that totally rewires what passes for education debate in this country.
For the cost of just a few well-funded randomized controlled trials (probably showing that yet another edtech product or teacher training failed at scale), you could have Edumarket.
For $10 million, instead of trying to persuade Bigwigs to “follow the evidence,” you bet against them and try to embarrass them away from their future mistakes.
Importantly, economists Eva Vivalt and Stefano DellaVigna have already built the bones of this prediction platform, for all social sciences. The back end is ready to roll.
Imagine how much “truth serum” could be injected into our wonky corner of the world.
All for the price of a one-time $10 million charitable investment.*
