and understanding how seriously they would take supreme court making a clear judgement (and e.g. would be open to protecting U.S. marshalls while they enforce supreme court judgement) seems like one of the most crucial questions.
I agree.
Also this is a scary question to investigate, because (on my current model, as described by this book), this is a Keynesian beauty contest—how almost everyone will act depends on how they expect almost everyone to act. Trying to get clarity about the question of how seriously the members of the armed forces take their oath to the constitution, or how they interpret the meaning of that oath, is much less of a neutral act than most exercises in figuring something out (even taking for granted that figuring stuff out often has implications for political conflicts, as the contextualizers cry, this question is particularly politically laden).
For this question more than most, the prediction market is probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have a prediction market, but it does seem like you should contend with the self- fulfilling nature somehow.
I feel on shaky ground here. It seems plausible to me that, if I have opportunity to, I should mostly not try to predict the answer to this question, I should mostly just try to reinforce the equilibrium of “the armed forces first loyalty is to the constitution.”
Or at least, I feel like I don’t have a developed philosophy of how to deal with questions that are mix of epistemic predictions and coordination-game.
To be clear: were I to take the above stance, I would continue to refrain from ever lying. Though I might also refrain from answering some classes of questions. (Also this is probably an academic point because I’m not likely to have much influence on what the US armed forces believe about what others in the US armed forces will do.)
I agree.
Also this is a scary question to investigate, because (on my current model, as described by this book), this is a Keynesian beauty contest—how almost everyone will act depends on how they expect almost everyone to act. Trying to get clarity about the question of how seriously the members of the armed forces take their oath to the constitution, or how they interpret the meaning of that oath, is much less of a neutral act than most exercises in figuring something out (even taking for granted that figuring stuff out often has implications for political conflicts, as the contextualizers cry, this question is particularly politically laden).
For this question more than most, the prediction market is probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have a prediction market, but it does seem like you should contend with the self- fulfilling nature somehow.
I feel on shaky ground here. It seems plausible to me that, if I have opportunity to, I should mostly not try to predict the answer to this question, I should mostly just try to reinforce the equilibrium of “the armed forces first loyalty is to the constitution.”
Or at least, I feel like I don’t have a developed philosophy of how to deal with questions that are mix of epistemic predictions and coordination-game.
To be clear: were I to take the above stance, I would continue to refrain from ever lying. Though I might also refrain from answering some classes of questions. (Also this is probably an academic point because I’m not likely to have much influence on what the US armed forces believe about what others in the US armed forces will do.)
I bet @Andrew Critch and @Richard_Ngo have thought about this question.