I don’t know why you think that. Quiz shows need huge production values and very valuable prizes to still be interesting.
With the kind of budget that’s conceivable for a startup group of amateur organizers, you have to be novel/creative to be found worth noticing outside the immediate circle of participants. Sure you could run a quiz show on a shoestring budget, but nobody is going to talk about it after.
And since this is about reaching people with ideas of thinking in probabilities and updating on evidence, everything that doesn’t get talked about after is a failure. Even if the event itself was entertaining.
I hold that opinion because a variety of Quiz shows are commercially successful. I think most entertainment has experiences with short feedback circles.
I don’t see how the event you propose is about updating on evidence. Updating on evidence in the sense it was done in the Good Judgement Project needs longer time frames than a tournament of a few days.
I see that the offline model doesn’t let people compete on research abilities but competition on calibration still gives you an event that’s about probabilities. It has the advantage that the players can make a lot more predictions in a short time frame and it’s less likely that the tournament gets won by lucky overconfident participants.
A 2-day event where people do 1 hour research per question likely doesn’t give you a dataset that allows you to pick a winner based on skill.
I don’t know why you think that. Quiz shows need huge production values and very valuable prizes to still be interesting.
With the kind of budget that’s conceivable for a startup group of amateur organizers, you have to be novel/creative to be found worth noticing outside the immediate circle of participants. Sure you could run a quiz show on a shoestring budget, but nobody is going to talk about it after.
And since this is about reaching people with ideas of thinking in probabilities and updating on evidence, everything that doesn’t get talked about after is a failure. Even if the event itself was entertaining.
I hold that opinion because a variety of Quiz shows are commercially successful. I think most entertainment has experiences with short feedback circles.
I don’t see how the event you propose is about updating on evidence. Updating on evidence in the sense it was done in the Good Judgement Project needs longer time frames than a tournament of a few days.
I see that the offline model doesn’t let people compete on research abilities but competition on calibration still gives you an event that’s about probabilities. It has the advantage that the players can make a lot more predictions in a short time frame and it’s less likely that the tournament gets won by lucky overconfident participants.
A 2-day event where people do 1 hour research per question likely doesn’t give you a dataset that allows you to pick a winner based on skill.