For the rest of this comment, I’m going to restrict “fox” to “good-scoring generalist forecaster”
why? this is very much not how I understand it, and I find it hard to even generate hypothesis to how you came to this conclusion. which make the rest of the comment seem irrelevant and missing the point.
foxes are people who go to people that have some big theory, and telling them they are wrong, everyone who try to have one theory is wrong, they should have many theories in their toolbox and use the more appropriate.
restricting foxes to good-scoring generalist forecaster is even more weird. like… why? bad scoring are not foxes? it’s look to me like trying to rig the game.
why? this is very much not how I understand it, and I find it hard to even generate hypothesis to how you came to this conclusion. which make the rest of the comment seem irrelevant and missing the point.
foxes are people who go to people that have some big theory, and telling them they are wrong, everyone who try to have one theory is wrong, they should have many theories in their toolbox and use the more appropriate.
basically I understood it as Toolbox-thinking and Law-thinking.
restricting foxes to good-scoring generalist forecaster is even more weird. like… why? bad scoring are not foxes? it’s look to me like trying to rig the game.