I’m seeking second opinions on whether my contention in Edit #4 at the bottom of this post is correct or incorrect. See the edit at the bottom of the post for full details.
Brief info:
My contention is about the Forecasting Research Institute’s recent LEAP survey.
One of the headline results from the survey is about the probabilities the respondents assign to each of three scenarios.
However, the question uses an indirect framing — an intersubjective resolution or metaprediction framing.
The specific phrasing of the question is quite important.
My contention is, if respondents took the question literally, as written, they did not actually report their probabilities for each scenario, and there is no way to derive their probabilities from what they did report.
Therefore, the headline result that states the respondents’ probabilities for the three scenarios is not actually true.
If my contention is right, then it means the results of the report are being misreported in a quite significant way. If my contention is wrong, then I must make a mea culpa and apologize to the Forecasting Research Institute for my error.
So, your help requested. Am I right or wrong?
(Note: the post discusses multiple topics, but here I’m specifically asking for opinions on the intersubjective resolution/​metaprediction concern raised in Edit #4.)
Your help requested:
I’m seeking second opinions on whether my contention in Edit #4 at the bottom of this post is correct or incorrect. See the edit at the bottom of the post for full details.
Brief info:
My contention is about the Forecasting Research Institute’s recent LEAP survey.
One of the headline results from the survey is about the probabilities the respondents assign to each of three scenarios.
However, the question uses an indirect framing — an intersubjective resolution or metaprediction framing.
The specific phrasing of the question is quite important.
My contention is, if respondents took the question literally, as written, they did not actually report their probabilities for each scenario, and there is no way to derive their probabilities from what they did report.
Therefore, the headline result that states the respondents’ probabilities for the three scenarios is not actually true.
If my contention is right, then it means the results of the report are being misreported in a quite significant way. If my contention is wrong, then I must make a mea culpa and apologize to the Forecasting Research Institute for my error.
So, your help requested. Am I right or wrong?
(Note: the post discusses multiple topics, but here I’m specifically asking for opinions on the intersubjective resolution/​metaprediction concern raised in Edit #4.)
I believe you are correct, and will probably write up a post explaining why in detail at some point.
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate it!