I’d consider this something like Superforecasting as a continuum rather than a category in that case, and 2% seems quite arbitrary as does calling them superforecasters.
That makes sense as an approach—but as mentioned initially, I think the issue with calling people superforecasters is deeper, since it’s unclear how much of the performance is even about their skill, rather than other factors.
Instead of basketball and the NBA, I’d compare superforecasting to performance at a modern (i.e. pay-to-win) mobile MMORPG: you need to be good to perform near the top, but the other factor that separates winners and losers is being willing to invest much more than others in loot boxes and items (i.e. time spent forecasting) because you really want to win.
If there isn’t a discontinuity, then how is there a clear group that outperformed?
See: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uoyn67q3HtB2ns2Yg/are-superforecasters-a-real-phenomenon#e9uGgK7PinFgK2o2z
I’d consider this something like Superforecasting as a continuum rather than a category in that case, and 2% seems quite arbitrary as does calling them superforecasters.
That makes sense as an approach—but as mentioned initially, I think the issue with calling people superforecasters is deeper, since it’s unclear how much of the performance is even about their skill, rather than other factors.
Instead of basketball and the NBA, I’d compare superforecasting to performance at a modern (i.e. pay-to-win) mobile MMORPG: you need to be good to perform near the top, but the other factor that separates winners and losers is being willing to invest much more than others in loot boxes and items (i.e. time spent forecasting) because you really want to win.