In response to a Manifest conference speaker withdrawing, in light of our invitation of Richard Hanania, 2023-09-01:

Hi, thanks for reaching out with your note. Diversity in the forecasting space is incredibly important to us too; you'll note that Rina called out Manifold specifically as a friendly forecasting community on her EAF comment:

I will say as a woman who was skeptical about her personal fit regarding forecasting I found playing around Manifold Markets and trying to make some forecasts helpful and the community there is friendly. So if anyone wants a easy way to just try for themselves what forecasting might look like head to: https://manifold.markets/

I was aware of the controversy around Hanania and didn't make the decision to invite him lightly. Ultimately, my considerations in asking him to speak were:

  1. “Rule thinkers in, not out.” Hanania has been a major proponent of prediction markets and of Manifold specifically. We partnered with him on the Salem Center forecasting tournament, which just concluded (see his retro and summary by Scott Alexander). In our interactions, Hanania has been professional and courteous, and dedicated to the project of seeking truth over validating his own beliefs; his retro on whether the best forecasters held left or right-wing views read to me as evenhanded and data-driven. Outside of Manifold, he’s:

His record of support for forecasting platforms is the primary reason I invited him to come speak.

  1. “To err is human, to forgive, divine.” I believe in second chances; he's publicly denounced his past views and announced an intention to do better. Such admission of wrongdoing strikes me as in keeping with the spirit of making public predictions. I’ve personally (and occasionally, publicly) held radioactive opinions, and I’m grateful to my friends and communities for calling me out while continuing to work with me.

  2. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” One key purpose of prediction markets, specifically, is to provide a place where people can disagree productively. At Manifold, we're committed to being a neutral provider of infrastructure. This sometimes means hosting content that we ourselves strongly disagree with! I think the world is better for having a place where people in conflict can come together and put their money where their mouth is. A conference not run on the same principles would fall short of being a proper Manifold conference.

Of course, in many ways running a conference is different than hosting an online platform. With an in-person event, the physical safety of our attendees matters enormously, and we’re willing to take steps to uphold this, up to and including expulsion of problematic individuals. That said, I also hope that our in-person event will foster some common human goodwill and decency, that can be missing from online discourse. XKCD:

Untitled

I myself have recently gone through a cycle of getting mad at an online critic, then later meeting them in-person and realizing they were… decent, kind, and human. Call me naive, but I really think if you had the chance to speak with Hanania face-to-face at our conference, both of you would come away with mutual respect and a nuanced understanding of your viewpoints.

Ultimately, your support for our conference (and for Manifold overall!) is yours to grant or withdraw. I’d really like Manifest to be a place where different viewpoints are expressed, and I think you could better advocate for your own viewpoints through your presence than your absence. Imagine if the only speakers in attendance were those who agreed with Hanania!

That said, if you decide that the principles that led us to host him are incompatible with your own principles, I will be sad, but also respect that you are standing for what you hold to be right. Thank you for all that you’ve done to help with our common project of forecasting the future.

Yours,

Austin