That may be right—an alternative would be to taboo the word in the post, and just explain that they are going to use people with an independent, objective track record of being good at reasoning under uncertainty.
Of course, some people might be (wrongly, imo) skeptical of even that notion, but I suppose there’s only such much one can do to get everyone on board. It’s a tricky balance of making it accessible to outsiders while still just saying what you believe about how the contest should work.
To be clear, I wrote “superforecasters” not because I mean the word, but because I think the very notion is controversial like you said—for example, I personally doubt the existence of people who can be predictably “good at reasoning under uncertainty” in areas where they have no expertise.
I think this would be better than the current state, but really any use of “superforecasters” is going to be extremely off-putting to outsiders.
That may be right—an alternative would be to taboo the word in the post, and just explain that they are going to use people with an independent, objective track record of being good at reasoning under uncertainty.
Of course, some people might be (wrongly, imo) skeptical of even that notion, but I suppose there’s only such much one can do to get everyone on board. It’s a tricky balance of making it accessible to outsiders while still just saying what you believe about how the contest should work.
To be clear, I wrote “superforecasters” not because I mean the word, but because I think the very notion is controversial like you said—for example, I personally doubt the existence of people who can be predictably “good at reasoning under uncertainty” in areas where they have no expertise.