Buy Wits & Wagers, use their cards for bite-sized numeric predictions you can state ranges for and check immediately. Best source of deliberate practice I know of.
I’ve played Wits and Wagers for this reason. But the issue is it doesn’t actually map that well to the skills I actually want (which is “calibrate estimate of how likely and event is to happen”, where the type of event is filtered for ‘the sorts of events I actually care about.’)
has made me pretty decent at calibration. By calibration I mean translating my feeling of uncertainty into a quantitative guess at uncertainty where that guess tracks with reality. I do not mean estimating accurately, I mean these two things:
1. Thinking about a sort of event I actually care about, coming up with a point estimate, then guessing the range around that point estimate such that the true answer is in that range roughly 50% of the time or roughly 90% of the time depending on what I’m going for.
2. Thinking about a sort of event I actually care about, coming up with a lower bound on a point estimate, coming up with an upper bound on a point estimate, shifting those bounds until my feelings of uncertainty that they’re actually lower/upper bounds are approximately equal for both of them, then taking the appropriate mean as my point estimate and having that point estimate be basically as good as I would have come up with in a more analytical way and also way faster to come up with.
Buy Wits & Wagers, use their cards for bite-sized numeric predictions you can state ranges for and check immediately. Best source of deliberate practice I know of.
I’ve played Wits and Wagers for this reason. But the issue is it doesn’t actually map that well to the skills I actually want (which is “calibrate estimate of how likely and event is to happen”, where the type of event is filtered for ‘the sorts of events I actually care about.’)
Interesting. I believe some combination of
Wits & Wagers (not playing, practicing)
Poker
Software development
Ambient practice
has made me pretty decent at calibration. By calibration I mean translating my feeling of uncertainty into a quantitative guess at uncertainty where that guess tracks with reality. I do not mean estimating accurately, I mean these two things:
1. Thinking about a sort of event I actually care about, coming up with a point estimate, then guessing the range around that point estimate such that the true answer is in that range roughly 50% of the time or roughly 90% of the time depending on what I’m going for.
2. Thinking about a sort of event I actually care about, coming up with a lower bound on a point estimate, coming up with an upper bound on a point estimate, shifting those bounds until my feelings of uncertainty that they’re actually lower/upper bounds are approximately equal for both of them, then taking the appropriate mean as my point estimate and having that point estimate be basically as good as I would have come up with in a more analytical way and also way faster to come up with.