From 75620b2452e141f3eb2d1451e14363df8078b1bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nu=C3=B1o=20Sempere?= Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 17:41:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Update Analysis.md --- rat/EA-predictions/Analysis.md | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rat/EA-predictions/Analysis.md b/rat/EA-predictions/Analysis.md index d28d027..c64ea17 100644 --- a/rat/EA-predictions/Analysis.md +++ b/rat/EA-predictions/Analysis.md @@ -100,7 +100,12 @@ For the 35 people who took part in the original prediction making, their results ![](https://nunosempere.github.io/rat/EA-predictions/histogram.jpeg) ![](https://nunosempere.github.io/rat/EA-predictions/Brier-scores.jpeg) -The average accuracy is 55.12%, that is, the average participant got 13.22 out of 24 questions right. If it had been reached, a target credence of 80% would imply an average of 19.2 correct answers. In other words, in this limited domain, when these people say 80%, the thing happens 55% of the time. If they bet, they'd be replacing ~1:1 bets with 1:4 bets. +The average accuracy is 55.12%, that is, the average participant got 13.22 out of 24 questions right. If it had been reached, a target credence of 80% would imply an average of 19.2 correct answers. In other words, in this limited domain, when these people say 80%, the thing happens 55% of the time. If they bet, they'd be replacing ~1:1 bets with 1:4 bets. +## Further analysis +Questions for further analysis: +1. Should the two savants who got very near 80% be proud, or should we expect them to exist merely by chance? +2. Are the results an artifact of a small number of questions which were really hard (f.ex. the % of LessWrongers in EA)? +I expect to answer those questions in the near future.