This doesn't seem like a great system to me for a couple reasons. First of all, it can be used to dismiss basically anything. If someone is bullish on crypto and also has a big financial stake in the crypto ecosystem are there more reliable because they have "skin in the game" or less reliable because they are just "talking their book"? But more importantly, it is really reductive about making predictions. You can look at vague predictions as wishy-washy or you can look at it at as someone being thoughtful about the fact that the world is complicated and the best we can do is assign probabilities. And how do you evaluate that? Was Nate Silver wrong because he gave Hillary Clinton a 70% chance of winning the 2016 election? According to him she "should have won" but didn't but things with 30% probability happen a lot so a single event doesn't really tell us much.
Comments
This doesn't seem like a great system to me for a couple reasons. First of all, it can be used to dismiss basically anything. If someone is bullish on crypto and also has a big financial stake in the crypto ecosystem are there more reliable because they have "skin in the game" or less reliable because they are just "talking their book"? But more importantly, it is really reductive about making predictions. You can look at vague predictions as wishy-washy or you can look at it at as someone being thoughtful about the fact that the world is complicated and the best we can do is assign probabilities. And how do you evaluate that? Was Nate Silver wrong because he gave Hillary Clinton a 70% chance of winning the 2016 election? According to him she "should have won" but didn't but things with 30% probability happen a lot so a single event doesn't really tell us much.