I’m surprised you were only able to predict whether you’d taken caffeine 80% of the time. 200 mg is not a heroic dose, but on little to no tolerance it should be quite noticeable.
I think they mean that beforehand you said “My prediction about the content of the pill is more accurate than random guesses80%”—meaning that you were 80% sure you would do better than a 50⁄50 guess of what type of pill it was throughout the trial. Then you found that you did indeed do better than 50⁄50, but didn’t give a number and I think sludgepuddle thought you had guessed right 80% of the time.
If did not make a mistake, this score could be achieved by e.g. giving ~55% probabilities and being correct every time or by always giving 70% probabilities and being right ~69 % of the time.
I’m surprised you were only able to predict whether you’d taken caffeine 80% of the time. 200 mg is not a heroic dose, but on little to no tolerance it should be quite noticeable.
Blinding is powerful! Not sure where you get 80% from, do you mean the number of times when I was directionally right in the prediction?
I think they mean that beforehand you said “My prediction about the content of the pill is more accurate than random guesses80%”—meaning that you were 80% sure you would do better than a 50⁄50 guess of what type of pill it was throughout the trial. Then you found that you did indeed do better than 50⁄50, but didn’t give a number and I think sludgepuddle thought you had guessed right 80% of the time.
Ah, I see. In the table is the log score of my pill predictions (-0.6). I made predictions abojt the accuracy of my predictions—confusing perhaps.
If did not make a mistake, this score could be achieved by e.g. giving ~55% probabilities and being correct every time or by always giving 70% probabilities and being right ~69 % of the time.