Nevermind, I think I've mostly figured it out: by arbitraging, I'm effectively borrowing against my various positions, so once the question is resolved, those debts must be paid before I can get the difference.Another question: what is the more general rule in trying to figure out when this can be done? By my math, 14.88 is about 93% of the 16 options, or 99% of 15 options. This leads me to believe that the more general rule is .99*(n-1) where n is the number of options, which would make sense, since you will not get paid for one of your positions. Is this roughly correct?
As someone new to Predictit, I can't help but feeling I'm misunderstanding how predictit pays out. Now that I have completed this, and have ~859 shares of each "No", will I not get payed $1 for each share of "No" which turns out to in fact be "No"? Based on what everyone is saying here, this seems highly unlikely, but I can't figure out how it works otherwise.
Quick update: I came up with a game to use as an icebreaker. And I'd love ideas for future variations. It's a combination of Credence Calibration, 20 Questions, and Taboo. The children are trying to determine which of three possible states exist on the card which I have face down (for my first iteration, the possibilities will be "Cat", "Rat", and "Dog"). Every kid gets 30 poker chips to allocate to each of the three possibilities. Kids will then take turns asking a yes or no question, but before each Q, I roll a six sided die. If it comes up six, all chips placed on a wrong answer are turned in, otherwise, they ask their question, I answer with something on a scale of "Never" to "Always", and they are permitted to reallocate their chips. But there is a catch: they are not permitted to use certain words (i.e. cat, dog, rat, meow, bark, pet, etc.) in their questions.The point is to find tests which can serve as evidence between the possibilities and recognize how confidence should change according to evidence.
Would be interested in other possible states for future iterations.
Wait a minute, are you Randall Munroe or do you just like the website so much that you adopted the name for your handle? If so, I'm flattered, I love your website.
I like the coin flip idea. I have done something along these lines as a single session with homeschool kids where I gave them two decks of cards and had them stack the deck while I was out. When I came back I used an Excel VBA program I had made to continually reassess the maximum likelihood for the red/black proportion and updated it as I drew cards. Didn't go quite as well as I had hoped, mostly because I didn't emphasize that in order to get quick results they needed to really stack the deck, and they had made it 24 red, 28 black, or something similar.
Anyway, yes, I was thinking exploring probability might have some more possibilities along these lines, so I will think about that a little more. We did optical illusions today: persistence of vision, pattern juxtaposition, etc. Then we talked about how they fool system 1 thought, but you can use system 2 techniques to defeat them, did things like measuring the apparently converging lines, slowed down the thaumatrope, etc.
Yes, I agree that doing good science is hard with flash, I've just had everyone telling me that that's what hooks them. Good to know that's not really true.
I'm thinking along the lines heavily leading to/giving the model, not necessarily having them come up with it themselves and then testing it. But part of the reason I'm asking here is to see if anyone has ideas regarding models which are discoverable by kids this age so that they can get there by more of their own processes.
Yes, I suppose I could have been more specific about the number of kids. I will be teaching my own two at a minimum, but could have as many as seven others join.
Thanks for the note about the handbook, I'll check it out.
I like these ideas, and you're right that these KISS type questions are good at getting at the heart of mechanisms and generalizing outside of context.
I'll mention now though, that I've been rightly advised to not disregard the flashy stuff kids like to see, because it is effective at getting them excited about science. Do you have any specific recommendations on how to take some of the classic "experiments for kids!" stuff you can find with a google search and add in a dose of "construct a falsifiable model and attempt to falsify it"? Some way I can keep the flash, but still teach them to the importance of models which allow them to make bold predictions?
Thanks for the link! It gave me his email address, I agree about the Inflection Point curriculum, the task will be to convert it to elementary level.
Found it thanks to the website posted below. email@example.com