Ok this confirms you haven’t understood what I’m claiming. If I gave a list of predictions that were my true 50% confidence interval, they would look very similar to common wisdom because I’m not a superforecaster (unless I had private information about a topic, e.g. a prediction on my net worth at the end of the year or something). If I gave my true 50% confidence interval, I would be indifferent to which way I phrased it (in the same way that if I was to predict 10 coin tosses it doesn’t matter whether I predict ten heads, ten tails, or some mix of the two).
From what I can tell from your examples, the list of predictions you proposed sending to me would not have represented your true 50% confidence intervals each time—you could have sent me 5 things you are very confident will come true and 5 things you are very confident won’t come true. It’s possible to fake any given level of calibration in this way.
Thanks I appreciate that :) And I apologize if my comment about probability being weird came across as patronizing, it was meant to be a reflection on the difficulty I was having putting my model into words, not a comment on your understanding
Ok this confirms you haven’t understood what I’m claiming.
I’m arguing against this claim:
I don’t think there is any difference in those lists!
I’m saying that it is harder to make a list where all predictions seem obviously false and have half of them come true than it is to make a list where half of all predictions seem obviously false and half seem obviously true and have half of them come true. That’s the only thing I’m claiming is true. I know you’ve said other things and I haven’t addressed them; that’s because I wanted to get consensus on this thing before talking about anything else.
A list of predictions that all seem extremely unlikely to come true according to common wisdom.
Ok this confirms you haven’t understood what I’m claiming. If I gave a list of predictions that were my true 50% confidence interval, they would look very similar to common wisdom because I’m not a superforecaster (unless I had private information about a topic, e.g. a prediction on my net worth at the end of the year or something). If I gave my true 50% confidence interval, I would be indifferent to which way I phrased it (in the same way that if I was to predict 10 coin tosses it doesn’t matter whether I predict ten heads, ten tails, or some mix of the two).
From what I can tell from your examples, the list of predictions you proposed sending to me would not have represented your true 50% confidence intervals each time—you could have sent me 5 things you are very confident will come true and 5 things you are very confident won’t come true. It’s possible to fake any given level of calibration in this way.
Also, I apologize for the statement that I “understand you perfectly” a few posts back. It was stupid and I’ve edited it out.
Thanks I appreciate that :) And I apologize if my comment about probability being weird came across as patronizing, it was meant to be a reflection on the difficulty I was having putting my model into words, not a comment on your understanding
I’m arguing against this claim:
I’m saying that it is harder to make a list where all predictions seem obviously false and have half of them come true than it is to make a list where half of all predictions seem obviously false and half seem obviously true and have half of them come true. That’s the only thing I’m claiming is true. I know you’ve said other things and I haven’t addressed them; that’s because I wanted to get consensus on this thing before talking about anything else.