4 ms·
Scott Alexander is a very careful quantifier of his bets, he tracks them year over year and always goes back to evaluate them and make sure he's well calibrated
by cornel_io 5y ago
Scott Alexander is a very careful quantifier of his bets, he tracks them year over year and always goes back to evaluate them and make sure he's well calibrated.
I take your point, but he is one of a very few people on this planet who would reliably say he just didn't know if that was a more accurate statement than what he said. The whole thing is not up in the air, there is limited but useful information available now, and he's trying to correctly integrate that.
- didibus 5y agoCan he accurately predict the accuracy of his predictions? I think that's an important factor. That said, you're right, but I was not focused on him, but on the bias that can be produced in other people when reading things like this. Though to be honest, I even worry that I have this bias as well. Like because I researched something, yet pretty inconclusive, I feel somehow better equipped to bet on it, and yet I have no idea if at that point I'm doing better than random.
- mousepilot 5y agoI think its ok, I'd start with hypotheses and when I can, I would test them, and in the absense of a spare planet and mammalian species as your test tube, the only thing I can think of as a proxy for the proverbial test tube would be what statistics we can find. I thought it was well worth the read and he left no uncertainty about the uncertainty of his test results.
- cornel_io 5y agoHe does quantify his degree of belief in his predictions, and he compares to what they would look like if he was perfectly calibrated, see https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/08/2019-predictions-calibration-results/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/08/2019-predictions-calib... Maybe not the most 100% rigorous analysis that one could do, but certainly well beyond how self-accountable most people are.