It is according to what calibration means in the context of probabilities.
Your link actually doesn't provide any information about how to evaluate or estimate someone's calibration which is what we are talking about.
if you are unhappy that we are assigning a property of correct mappings ('calibration') to a narrow mapping
It's not quite that. I'm not happy with this use of averages. I'll need to think more about it, but off the top of my head, I'd look at the average absolute difference between the answer (which is 0 or 1) and the confidence expressed, or maybe the square root of the sum of squares... But don't quote me on that, I'm just thinking aloud here.
Your link actually doesn't provide any information about how to evaluate or estimate someone's calibration which is what we are talking about.
If we don't agree about what it is, it will be very difficult to agree how to evaluate it!
It's not quite that. I'm not happy with this use of averages.
Surely it makes sense to use averages to determine the probability of being correct for any given confidence level. If I've grouped together 8 predictions and labeled them "80%", and 4 of them are correct and 4 of them are incorrect, it seems sensible...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.