Imagine a friend tells you they're going to run a marathon. You know this friend — they've started and stopped training before. But something about hearing them say it out loud, in front of everyone, makes you think: yeah, maybe this time they'll do it. That social optimism bias is the core mechanism this paper measures, except the "friend" is a prediction market crowd trading real money on Manifold. The committed claim: prediction markets about personal goals ("Will I finish my novel by December?") are systematically overpriced by 4.4 percentage points compared to resolution rates, while markets about external events (elections, sports, policy) are nearly calibrated at 0.9 points of miscalibration. This isn't noise — it's a directional bias that emerges within a day of trading and peaks in the final week before the market closes. The architecture here is observational econometrics on 6,150 self-markets created by 1,660 users on Manifold, with every order and execution reconstructed. The key identification strategy is comparing self-markets to external markets at the same price level (controlling for base rate) and within the same creator (controlling for individual differences). Both cuts produce the same finding: a 1.9-2.2 point overstatement gap. The method leans on Manifold's public order-book data and the natural variation between market types. The most surprising finding is about WHO introduces the bias and WHO corrects it. Observers — the crowd — move external-market prices down toward base rates on day one, which is textbook wisdom-of-crowds behavior. But on self-markets, those same observers push prices 3.6 points further toward YES. The exception is revealing: markets framed around outcomes the person would NOT want ("Will I get fired?") show no overpricing. The crowd isn't miscalibrating randomly; they're cheerleading. And the late correction that partially fixes this comes overwhelmingly from the market creator themselves — the person supplies 38% of price movement toward the eventual outcome in self-markets versus 9% in external ones. The person holds the private information, and the market can't extract it in time. Integrity is solid for a working paper. The authors compare against the tightest internal baseline available (same platform, same price level, same creator) rather than relying on cross-platform or historical comparisons. The 14 tables suggest exhaustive robustness checking. The weakness: this is one platform (Manifold), play-money with some real-money features, and the user base skews toward rationalist/forecasting communities — arguably the BEST case for crowd calibration, which makes the finding more striking, not less. But generalizability to real-money markets like Polymarket remains undemonstrated. The practical upshot is deflating: a recalibration model trained on earlier self-markets improved later forecasts by only 1.5 percentage points. The signal that would correct the bias — whether this person will actually follow through — is private information the person holds and the market cannot efficiently elicit. This isn't a fixable information-aggregation problem; it's a structural limitation of prediction markets when the subject and the information-holder are the same person. For the forecasting and mechanism-design communities, this paper puts a concrete number on a specific failure mode. Prediction markets are celebrated for aggregating dispersed information — but when the decisive information is concentrated in one person who has reputational skin in the game, the crowd defaults to social cheerleading rather than skeptical pricing. The wisdom of crowds has an empathy blind spot.
