Disagreements are an excellent opportunity for improving our models of the world, but expressing dissent constructively can be challenging. In my experience, people often don't have well-formulated ideas about the underlying probability of the point they're arguing for, but instead start from a position that confirms their worldview. In a conversational disagreement, there is little incentive for them to concede ground since often they're arguing for a point that isn't even falsifiable. Introducing stakes, as with monetary bets, can help participants critically evaluate their beliefs and the operationalization required to formulate the bet can be clarifying. However, challenging someone to engage in a monetary bet can feel confrontational and inappropriate in many social settings. As an alternative to monetary bets, I propose the concept of 'book bets' as a more congenial alternative.
Book Bets in Concept
In the same way that monetary bets allow participants to express confidence in their beliefs, book bets provide a mechanism to put their intellectual “money” where their mouth is by wagering the number of book suggestions from the other party they’re willing to risk reading if they’re wrong. The odds of the bet can reflect the confidence each person has in their position.
Here's how it works:
Two people disagree on a forecast
They define a specific, falsifiable claim, a timeframe, and a trusted source for resolution
They agree on the odds of the bet; any odds ratio between the differing beliefs should be acceptable, but this is an opportunity for the more confident party to be magnanimous and accept odds closer to their stated estimate as proof of their confidence
After the forecast is resolved, the correct participant gets to select the specified number of books for the other participant to read
By using books to read as the stakes, ‘book bets’ create a friendly atmosphere, fostering intellectual growth and encouraging constructive dialogue. Hopefully, the winner will select books that will provide insights into the perspectives that helped the them succeed in the bet and help the other participant better understand their perspective.
Book Bets in Practice
Suppose two co-workers, Mark and Dana, are having lunch together and the subject of the future of self-driving cars comes up. Mark, who has recently seen some exciting announcements on social media excitedly claims, "Self-driving cars are going to be everywhere very soon!" Dana, skeptical, responds, "hmmm, I’m not so sure. It feels like there are still a lot of things that need to fall into place before that can happen.”
Mark replies, “I’m usually right about these kinds of things. I follow very reliable sources and I’m telling you, it’s happening.”
Seeing an opportunity to turn their debate into something more constructive, Dana proposes, "How about we make this interesting with a book bet? Let's define what 'very soon' means and see who's closer to the mark when the time comes."
Mark considers this, then moderates his initial statement, "Okay, let's say by the end of next year, autonomous taxis will be generally available in the same way as ride-share is to virtually anyone in every major city in the US. The technology is practically solved. I’d give it a 95% chance."
Dana nods, “If you’re that confident, how about if you agree to read 19 of my book suggestions if you’re wrong and I can read 1 of your book suggestions if you’re right? Those odds would match your 95% estimate.”
Mark thinks for a second about having to read 19 books if he’s wrong and considers whether he’s really so sure, “Well, no. I should have said that even though I think the technology is ready, a lot of cities might have red tape that could take a while longer to get sorted out, so maybe I should have said at least 6 of the 10 biggest cities in the US will have self-driving taxis by the end of next year.”
Dana nods, "That seems more plausible than 'everywhere very soon,' would you like to make the bet at 19 books to 1 with that caveat in place?”
Mark thinks for another second or two, “hmmm, I guess the regulatory stuff adds some uncertainty, but, I’m still pretty sure. Probably 80%. How about you Dana? What do you think?”
Dana replies, “I haven’t really thought about it, but if you’d asked me this morning, I probably would have said only 15%, but there have been a lot of times in meetings that you spotted something everyone else missed, and you read about these kinds of things a lot more than me, so I guess I’d update to around 25%. I’m really not very confident though. All I can really say is I’d be kind of surprised if it turns out to be true, but, if it does, I’d be happy to read a book of your choosing. Since you’re more confident, how about if we set the odds at 2:1. Would you be willing to read two of my suggestions if you turn out to be wrong?”
Mark says, “It’s a deal!”
Reflections and Suggestions
Book bets are a practical tool that turns casual debates into serious discussions with real stakes. They impose a cost on overconfidence without being aggressive or adversarial and encourage honest belief representation. When participants risk having to immerse themselves in readings that challenge their views, they’re more likely to measure their words and think critically about their assertions.
Real Stakes Mean Real Consideration: The introduction of real stakes—having to commit time to reading books—compels participants to evaluate their certainty more cautiously. While most people feel good making confident assertions that support their existing worldview when there are no costs to face, once their beliefs become tethered to real-world consequences, you can sometimes see an immediate shift as their rational mind jumps in to save them from the potential cost of overconfidence.
Turning Arguments into Resolvable Questions: Like monetary bets, book bets can cut through the noise of stubborn arguments by focusing on verifiable outcomes. They move theoretical disagreements into concrete, measurable terms, which is a step towards uncovering truth.
Opportunity for Learning: The beauty lies in the aftermath for the non-winner. The selected readings offer a window into the winner's thought process, potentially shedding light on why they ended up on the right side of maybe. This isn’t about conceding defeat; it’s seeing a new perspective that could reshape their thinking.
Conclusion
Book bets offer an alternative to traditional bets, moving potential intellectual conflicts into opportunities for growth and understanding. By swapping monetary stakes with the promise of reading, these bets lower the social barriers to entry for more people to engage in meaningful, evidence-based discussions. It’s not about proving who’s right, but about better understanding the world and each other.
Next time you find yourself in a spirited debate, consider proposing a book bet. It could turn a disagreement into a learning opportunity.
I'm afraid this would only work for me if I were really interested in the other person's book recommendations anyway. The value to me of getting someone else to read a book of my choice is much less than the cost to me of having someone commandeer my limited reading time. You'd have to pay me a lot of money—like enough to pay my rent for months!—to read 19 books that someone else chose.