> base rate reasoning using the past 99 years of data Like many things, if you do it badly it doesn’t work. If you had that little data, you’d look at the rate

> base rate reasoning using the past 99 years of data Like many things, if you do it badly it doesn’t work. If you had that little data, you’d look at the rate across many similar volcanoes. Focusing on base rate makes you more effective than others because people tend to only focus on the delta from the base rate. Tensions are “elevated”. Ok, elevated from what? People don’t actually ask that. They pull a number out of thin air and double it. If you intentionally consider “what is the base rate?” and “how is this different from the base case?” you empirically end up with better results. You’re also not married to the base rate. If you think a factor makes the odds 100x higher, go for it. You just have to say that explicitly.