The “concerned” participants (all of whom were domain experts) … the “skeptical” group (mainly “superforecasters”)
Can you say more about your selection process, because this seems very important to understanding how much to update on this. Did you
a) decide you needed roughly equally balanced groups of sceptics vs concerned, start with superforecasters, find that they were overwhelmingly sceptics, and therefore specifically seek domain experts because they were concerned
b) decide you needed roughly equally balanced groups of sceptics vs concerned, start with domain experts, find that they were overwhelmingly concerned, and therefore specifically seek superforecasters because they were sceptics
c) decide you needed roughly equally balanced groups of sceptics vs concerned, seek out domain experts and superforecasters at the same time, and find this gave you a natural balance without needing any massaging of the selection process
This statement was very surprising to me:
Can you say more about your selection process, because this seems very important to understanding how much to update on this. Did you
a) decide you needed roughly equally balanced groups of sceptics vs concerned, start with superforecasters, find that they were overwhelmingly sceptics, and therefore specifically seek domain experts because they were concerned
b) decide you needed roughly equally balanced groups of sceptics vs concerned, start with domain experts, find that they were overwhelmingly concerned, and therefore specifically seek superforecasters because they were sceptics
c) decide you needed roughly equally balanced groups of sceptics vs concerned, seek out domain experts and superforecasters at the same time, and find this gave you a natural balance without needing any massaging of the selection process
or some other process?