Credence polls for 26 claims from the 2019 Review
This post is a whirlwind tour of claims made in the LessWrong 2019 Review. In some cases, the claim is literally quoted from the post. In others, I have tried operationalising it into something more falsifiable. For example:
Overall, treat the claims in this post more like polls, and less like the full-blown forecasting questions you’d find on Metaculus or PredictIt. (The latter have extremely high bars for crisp definitions.) They point in a direction, but don’t completely pin it down.
Overall, this is an experiment. I’m trying to find interesting ways for people to relate to the Review.
Maybe speeding through these questions gets you thinking good thoughts, that you can then turn into full-blown reviews? Maybe others’ answers allow you to find a discussion partner who disagrees on a core question? Maybe the data will be useful in the voting phase?
Feel free to leave a comment about how you found the experience, if you want.
If you want to discuss the questions with others over a call, you can do so during the Review forecasting sessions we’re organising this weekend (January 9-10).
If you want to hide other user’s predictions until you’ve made your own, here’s how to do that:
Making more land out of the about 50mi^2 shallow water in the San Francisco Bay, South of the Dumbarton Bridge, would…
These questions are quite technical, and might be hard to answer if you’re unfamiliar with the terminology used in TurnTrout’s sequence on Impact Measures.
(Note that when you answer questions in this summary post, and it will automatically update the prediction questions that I have linked in comments on each individual post. The distributions will later be visible when users are voting to rank the posts.)