= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on Open Thread, Dec. 28 - Jan. 3, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (144)
That's the signalling issue - I'm trying to create a better signal so you don't have to make that tradeoff
Question Example: "How many units will this product sell in Q1 2016?" (Where this product is something boring, like a brand of toilet paper)
This is a question that I don't ever see being popular with the general public. If you only have a few experts in a prediction market, you don't have enough liquidity to update your predictions. With prediction polls, that isn't a problem.
Why do you call that "signaling"? A top-tier school has a real, actual, territory-level advantage over a backwater college. The undergrads there are different.
I don't know about that not being a problem. Lack of information is lack of information. Pooling forecasts is not magical.
Because you're going by the signal (the college name), not the actual thing you're measuring for (forecasting ability).
I meant a problem for frequent updates. Obviously, less participants will lead to less accurate forecasts - but by brier weighting and extremizing you can still get fairly decent results.