Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology
Article
Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology is a recurring organization in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 3 times across 3 issues between August 12, 2021 and August 28, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “Richard Hanania of the Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology”; “Richard Hanania’s Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology”; “The Salem Center and the Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology, two think tanks associated with right-wing intellectual Richard Hanania”. It most often appears alongside Richard Hanania, Donald Trump, Hanania.
Metadata
- Category: Organizations
- Mention count: 3
- Issue count: 3
- First seen: August 12, 2021
- Last seen: August 28, 2023
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- Richard Hanania (3 shared issues)
-
- Donald Trump (2 shared issues)
-
- Hanania (2 shared issues)
-
- Jacob Steinhardt (2 shared issues)
-
- Kalshi (2 shared issues)
-
- Manifold (2 shared issues)
-
- Metaculus (2 shared issues)
-
- Polymarket (2 shared issues)
-
- PredictIt (2 shared issues)
-
- United States (2 shared issues)
-
- 2017 presidential election (1 shared issues)
-
- 2024: Bullish on Blue (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
Richard Hanania of the Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology asks "why is everything liberal?" Given that there are approximately equal numbers of Trump voters and Biden voters in elections, how come we have "woke capital" celebrating Pride Month, instead of unwoke capital celebrating some conservative cause (as might have happened fifty years ago)? How come conservatives worry about censorship by liberal tech companies instead of vice versa? How come conservatives worry about college turning their kids liberal instead of vice versa?
The Salem Center at the University of Texas Austin, in conjunction with Richard Hanania’s Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology will be giving a cushy paid academic fellowship to the winner of their Manifold-based prediction market tournament.
Inline links: giving a cushy paid academic fellowship
Kalshi: https://kalshi.com/markets/supercon/roomtemp-superconductor-reported Both reached the 40s to 50s! I think there just wasn’t enough smart money to drown out the people who wanted to bet on an exciting thing being true, or who were unduly influenced by a social media environment optimized to keep their attention by convincing them that an exciting thing was true. I have never claimed prediction markets are always good. All I wrote in the Prediction Market FAQ was that either a prediction market will be good, or you could make lots of free money. In this case, it was the second one. I regret I only made $30. I do hope this situation will improve over time, as over-eager forecasters get burned and dollars flow from dumb money to smarter. [EDIT: I should have included something about Metaculus here, but it’s confusing. I think the most popular Metaculus market was lower because it had stricter resolution criteria (the first replication had to be positive, instead of any replication) but that otherwise Metaculus raw probabilities mirrored everyone else’s. We don’t know how their algorithmically processed probabilities did yet and I’ll report on that information when I get it.] Salem/CSPI Tournament Winners The Salem Center and the Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology, two think tanks associated with right-wing intellectual Richard Hanania, sponsored a prediction market tournament last year. Participants got $1000 in play money to bet on selected markets about current events; winners would be interviewed for a well-paying academic sinecure at one of the think tanks. Now the tournament is over. Winners have yet to be announced, but unofficially, everyone knows who they are: First place out of 999 participants is zubbybadger. Zubby is a prediction market veteran who was featured in a Washington Monthly article last year for his great track record in political betting (he’s made > $150,000 on PredictIt). Now he works as a “community manager” for Kalshi (I don’t know what this entails). Second place was Robert from Considerations On Codecrafting. He’s written a detailed reflection on his experience (part one, part two) which is my main source for this section and highly recommended. He describes himself as “having absolutely no experience with prediction markets”. Third place was Johnny Ten-Numbers, about whom I can find no further information. You can see the rest of the top 20 at the very bottom of this post. Reading Robert’s story of his experience, I’m struck by how little of the competition at the top was about predictive accuracy. Everyone in the top 20 was a very accurate predictor (Exactly equally accurate? Hard to tell.) What separated 1st place from 20th, aside from luck, was things like: Ability to move fast - both in responding to news, and in taking the other side of bad bets. Several top performers programmed bots to give them an edge here.