3 ms·
If you're suggesting a Likert scale of "very unlikely" "somewhat likely" etc.: no, the data floating around suggests that does not work. People saying "somewhat
by kqr 3y ago
If you're suggesting a Likert scale of "very unlikely" "somewhat likely" etc.: no, the data floating around suggests that does not work. People saying "somewhat likely" mean anything between 10 % and 80 %. There's no way to map fuzzy descriptions to calibrated probabilities.
If you're suggesting a Likert scale with alternatives like "10 %", "25 %", "50 %", etc. that are then auto-calibrated against the average human overconfidence (so that an answer of 25 % really means 40 %), then that might work, but what would be the point?
- Mathnerd314 3y ago10% for "somewhat likely" wouldn't make any sense, "likely" by itself means >50%. I was proposing to simply label 5 or 7 points on the slider, like 10% as "very unlikely", 50% as "neutral", and 66% as "somewhat likely". I am sure there is a decent-sized study that asked people to predict events on a Likert scale as likely/unlikely and then one could calibrate the mapping from Likert scale to probability points using this study. There is a study showing that people intuitively map Likert scales to a slider https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-017-1344-2/figures/3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-017-1344-2/... so by properly spacing and positioning the Likert labels, people will at least be somewhat more calibrated than in the absence of any cues.
- kqr 3y agoIt does make sense for some people. Some people might say it's somewhat likely Sweden is still not a NATO member at the end of the year – and mean there's a 10 % probability it happens. That's the problem with these fuzzy labels – the variance between individuals (and even within individuals across time) is huge.