Thank you very much. I really appreciate your helpful and cooperative approach.
The âbest matchingâ wording of the question doesnât, in my view, change the underlying problem of presenting these as the only three options.
Itâs also a problem, in my view, that the âbest matchingâ wording is dropped on page 38 and the report simply talks about the probability respondents assign to the scenario. I looked at the report in the first place because a Forecasting Research Institute employee just said (on the EA Forum) what the probability assigned to a scenario was, and didnât mention the âbest matchingâ wording (or the three-scenario framing). If you include âbest matchingâ in the question and then drop it when you present the results, what was the point of saying âbest matchingâ in the first place?
[Edited on 2025-11-14 at 6:32 PM Eastern to add: The Forecasting Research Institute also presented the results as expertsâ probabilities for these scenarios in a post on the EA Forum. See Edit #2 added to the post above.]
I didnât intend for the post to come across as more than a criticism of this specific question in the survey â I said that the report contains many questions and said âIâve only looked at the report briefly and there is a lot that could be examined and discussedâ. I meant the title literally and factually. This is a major flaw that I came across in the report.
I would be happy to change the title of the post or change the wording of the post if someone can suggest a better alternative.
If people have qualms with either the tone or the substance of the post, Iâd certainly like to hear them. So, I encourage people to comment.
Thank you very much. I really appreciate your helpful and cooperative approach.
The âbest matchingâ wording of the question doesnât, in my view, change the underlying problem of presenting these as the only three options.
Itâs also a problem, in my view, that the âbest matchingâ wording is dropped on page 38 and the report simply talks about the probability respondents assign to the scenario. I looked at the report in the first place because a Forecasting Research Institute employee just said (on the EA Forum) what the probability assigned to a scenario was, and didnât mention the âbest matchingâ wording (or the three-scenario framing). If you include âbest matchingâ in the question and then drop it when you present the results, what was the point of saying âbest matchingâ in the first place?
[Edited on 2025-11-14 at 6:32 PM Eastern to add: The Forecasting Research Institute also presented the results as expertsâ probabilities for these scenarios in a post on the EA Forum. See Edit #2 added to the post above.]
I didnât intend for the post to come across as more than a criticism of this specific question in the survey â I said that the report contains many questions and said âIâve only looked at the report briefly and there is a lot that could be examined and discussedâ. I meant the title literally and factually. This is a major flaw that I came across in the report.
I would be happy to change the title of the post or change the wording of the post if someone can suggest a better alternative.
If people have qualms with either the tone or the substance of the post, Iâd certainly like to hear them. So, I encourage people to comment.