Comment Permalink

Johnicholas16y30

The improvement in this paper, over simply making two estimates one after another, is the focus on assuming your first estimate is wrong while constructing your second estimate.

The control group in the paper did make two estimates; I'll edit to emphasize that.

See in context

22 Dialectical Bootstrapping

by Johnicholas

13th Mar 2009

1 min read

22

"Dialectical Bootstrapping" is a simple procedure that may improve your estimates. This is how it works:

Estimate the number in whatever manner you usually would estimate. Write that down.
Assume your first estimate is off the mark.
Think about a few reasons why that could be. Which assumptions and considerations could have been wrong?
What do these new considerations imply? Was the first estimate rather too high or too low?
Based on this new perspective, make a second, alternative estimate.

Herzog and Hertwig find that average of the two estimates (in a historical-date estimating task) is more accurate than the first estimate, (Edit: or the average of two estimates without the "assume you're wrong" manipulation). To put the finding in a OB/LW-centric manner, this procedure (sometimes, partially) avoids Cached Thoughts.

Fermi EstimationForecasting & Prediction

Personal Blog

22

Dialectical Bootstrapping

New Comment

8 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 7:22 PM

[-]RobinHanson16y80

In this study is the average also more accurate than the second guess?

[-]Unnamed16y20

They don't test that directly. From what they report, it looks like the average is more accurate than the second guess, but not statistically significantly so. The average is 7.6 better than the first guess (with mean errors of 123.2 vs. 130.8, looking at all participants' first guesses, and the averages of only those in the dialectical bootstrapping condition). The second guess (of those in the dialectical bootstrapping condition) is only 4.5 better than their first guess, which is not reliably different from zero (95% CI = -1.0 to +10.4).

[-]Johnicholas16y10

In the reliability condition, the first and second estimates for each question were nearly identically accurate, with a mean within-participants difference of 0.4 (SD = 6.7; Mdn = 0.0; confidence interval, or CI = 0.0–+1.4; d = 0.06). In the dialectical-bootstrapping condition, the second estimates were somewhat, but not reliably, more accurate than their respective first estimates (within-participants difference: M = 4.5, SD = 19.6; Mdn = 3.0; CI = -1.0–+10.4; d = 0.23).

[-]jimmy16y30

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/average-your-gu.html

The same point is made there, with the addition that the second guess is usually worse than the first. What kind of weighting do we need to put second answer so that we can eliminate that bias? It has to be less than one (since the second answer is worse than the first), but more than one fourth (since the average is better than the first guess)

[-]Johnicholas16y30

The improvement in this paper, over simply making two estimates one after another, is the focus on assuming your first estimate is wrong while constructing your second estimate.

The control group in the paper did make two estimates; I'll edit to emphasize that.

[-][anonymous]16y10

I have found this to very useful.

[-]ArthurB16y10

It would be interesting to try the experiment with Versed. You remove the dialectical aspect (steps 2,3,4) but you keep the wisdom of the crowd aspect.

[-]Johnicholas16y10

By "Versed", are you referring to the drug Midazolam? Is there a particular reason that you picked that drug rather than, say, alcohol?

Moderation Log