superforecasters
also referred to as: super forecaster · super forecasters
6 statements across 2 episodes · 3 bullish · 0 bearish · 2 people on the record · first statement Dec 8, 2015 by Philip Tetlock · across every show →
Everything said about superforecasters, oldest first
Dec 8, 2015 positive
Tetlock: Superforecasters break intractable problems into exposed subcomponent estimates
“And that's what super forecasters are pretty good at doing. Breaking down seemingly attractable problems into semi-attractable components and then just pushing. They're not afraid of looking stupid and making estimates that observers can see and look at and sa…”
Dec 8, 2015
Dec 8, 2015 positive
Tetlock: Superforecasters actively second-guess their successes rather than just taking credit
“And supers do that too. But they also second guess their successes. They say, well, were we lucky just where we really nailed this question, but were we lucky? Could it have gone otherwise? Were we almost wrong? That's an unusual question for people to ask the…”
Dec 8, 2015
Tetlock: Modeling randomness is a good way to fail as a forecaster
“If you want to be a good forecaster, you don't spend very much time working on roulette wheel type problems. I mean, if, I mean, if you go to, if you visit casinos, you'll find lots of people who think they can detect patterns in roulette wheel spins. And they…”
Dec 8, 2015
Tetlock: Superforecasters uniquely believe probability estimation is a cultivatable skill
“They tend to score higher on measures of fluid intelligence. They tend to score higher on measures of active open-mindedness. But if I had to identify one factor that I think best distinguishes super forecasters from other forecasters who are equally intellige…”
Sep 6, 2022 positive
Tversky: Superforecasters succeed through fine calibration and perspective changing
“They are numerate, so they can distinguish between 10% probability and 15% probability, and they can change their predictions by a percentage point or two percentage points, so they're well calibrated in their use of probabilities. But most of all, they seem t…”