Your â90% confidence intervalâ of⌠what, exactly? This looks like a confidence interval over the value of your own subjective probability estimate? And â90% as the meanâ of⌠a bunch of different guesses youâve taken at your âtrueâ subjective probability? I canât imagine why anyone would do that but I canât think what else this could coherently meanâŚ?
If I can be blunt, I suspect you might be repeating probabilistic terms without really tracking their technical meaning, as though youâre just inserting nontechnical hedges. Maybe itâs worth taking the time to reread the map/âterritory stuff and then run through some calibration practice problems while thinking closely about what youâre doing. Or maybe just use nontechnical hedges more, they work perfectly well for expressing things like this.
Thanks for the feedbackâit has indeed been a long time since I did high school statistics!
I specified that the numbers I gave were âapproximations to prove my pointâ is because I know that I do not have a technical statistical model in my head, and I didnât want to pretend that was the case. Given this is a non-technical, shortform post, I thought it was clear what I meantâapologies if that wasnât so.
It means something like âmy 90% confidence interval is 80% â 95%, with 90% as the meanâ.
Your â90% confidence intervalâ of⌠what, exactly? This looks like a confidence interval over the value of your own subjective probability estimate? And â90% as the meanâ of⌠a bunch of different guesses youâve taken at your âtrueâ subjective probability? I canât imagine why anyone would do that but I canât think what else this could coherently meanâŚ?
If I can be blunt, I suspect you might be repeating probabilistic terms without really tracking their technical meaning, as though youâre just inserting nontechnical hedges. Maybe itâs worth taking the time to reread the map/âterritory stuff and then run through some calibration practice problems while thinking closely about what youâre doing. Or maybe just use nontechnical hedges more, they work perfectly well for expressing things like this.
Thanks for the feedbackâit has indeed been a long time since I did high school statistics!
I specified that the numbers I gave were âapproximations to prove my pointâ is because I know that I do not have a technical statistical model in my head, and I didnât want to pretend that was the case. Given this is a non-technical, shortform post, I thought it was clear what I meantâapologies if that wasnât so.