Personally, I think that the post did discuss that objection. In particular, the section āāFalse precisionāā seems to capture that objection, and then the section āResilienceā suggests Greg thinks that his proposal addresses that objection. In particular, Greg isnāt suggesting saying (A), but rather saying something like (A+) āI think thereās a 12% chance of a famine in South Sudan this year, but if I spent another 5 hours on this Iād expect to move by 6%ā.
What I was wondering was what his thoughts were on the possibility of substantial anchoring and false perceptions of certainty even if you adjust A to A+. And whether that means itād often be best to indeed make the adjustment of mentioning resilience, but to still āround offā oneās estimate even so.
Hmm. Okay, thatās fair, on re-reading I note the OP did discuss this at the start, but Iām still unconvinced. I think the context may make a difference. If you are speaking to a member of the public, I think my concern stands, because of how they will misinterpret the thoughtfulness of your prediction. If you are speaking to other predict-y types, I think this concerns disappears, as they will interpret your statements the way you mean them. And if youāre putting a set of predictions together into a calculation, not only it is useful to carry that precision through, but itās not as if your calculation will misinterpret you, so to speak.
Personally, I think that the post did discuss that objection. In particular, the section āāFalse precisionāā seems to capture that objection, and then the section āResilienceā suggests Greg thinks that his proposal addresses that objection. In particular, Greg isnāt suggesting saying (A), but rather saying something like (A+) āI think thereās a 12% chance of a famine in South Sudan this year, but if I spent another 5 hours on this Iād expect to move by 6%ā.
What I was wondering was what his thoughts were on the possibility of substantial anchoring and false perceptions of certainty even if you adjust A to A+. And whether that means itād often be best to indeed make the adjustment of mentioning resilience, but to still āround offā oneās estimate even so.
Hmm. Okay, thatās fair, on re-reading I note the OP did discuss this at the start, but Iām still unconvinced. I think the context may make a difference. If you are speaking to a member of the public, I think my concern stands, because of how they will misinterpret the thoughtfulness of your prediction. If you are speaking to other predict-y types, I think this concerns disappears, as they will interpret your statements the way you mean them. And if youāre putting a set of predictions together into a calculation, not only it is useful to carry that precision through, but itās not as if your calculation will misinterpret you, so to speak.