= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on A fun estimation test, is it useful? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
If I got 9 right and someone else got all 10 right and gave narrower ranges than I did, I'd say he's probably better at estimating than I am.
Better discrimination, but worse calibration (probably, low confidence since it's only a single data point).
He'd better at estimating the answers themselves, but he'd be worse at estimating his ability to estimate.
To be fair, 90% confidence means 90% on average. From one test like this, I'm not sure you could conclude much difference in ability to estimate or synthesize confidence levels between people who score 8, 9, and 10. Indeed, because of the gaming ability for picking 9 with -inf to inf bounds and one with tight bounds to force a 9, I would weight a 10 achieved with tighter bounds as better at confidence estimation as a 9 achieved with wildly different or generally wider confidence bounds.