Pablo_Stafforini comments on Contrarianism and reference class forecasting - Less Wrong

26 Post author: taw 25 November 2009 07:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 29 November 2009 06:01:11PM * 1 point [-]

Bouchard's recent meta-analysis upholds such high estimates, at least for adulthood. These are the figures listed on Table 1 (p. 150):

Age 5: .22

Age 7: .40

Age 10 .54

Age 12 .85

Age 16 .62

Age 18 .82

Age 26 .88

Age 50 .85

Age >75 .54–.62

Comment author: RobinZ 29 November 2009 06:07:43PM 0 points [-]

Did you type the number for Age 16 correctly? I can think of no sensible reason why there should be a divot there.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 29 November 2009 06:28:07PM 1 point [-]

I uploaded Bouchard's paper here. I also uploaded Snyderman and Rothman's study here.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 29 November 2009 06:21:17PM 1 point [-]

Yes, the figure is correct.