One quibble, there was a little bait and switch from someone with a well-calibrated model whose calibration just hasn’t been well-evidenced, to...
You’ll hear people saying that X will definitely fuck everything up very soon. And it doesn’t. And when the catastrophe doesn’t happen, don’t over-update. Don’t say, “They cried wolf before and nothing happened, thus they are no longer credible.”
These people ARE no longer credible as they are not estimating 5% chances but 95% chances, and the lack of an event, rather than being consistent with their model, is inconsistent with their model.
Your point is still well-taken, and I think the switch is a natural reflex given the infrequency of pundits attempting to make well-calibrated or even probabilistic judgments. For example, it has been noticeable to me to see Jamie Dimon publicly assigning probabilities to differing recession/not-recession severity bins rather than just sticking to the usual binary statements often seen in that space.
One quibble, there was a little bait and switch from someone with a well-calibrated model whose calibration just hasn’t been well-evidenced, to...
These people ARE no longer credible as they are not estimating 5% chances but 95% chances, and the lack of an event, rather than being consistent with their model, is inconsistent with their model.
Your point is still well-taken, and I think the switch is a natural reflex given the infrequency of pundits attempting to make well-calibrated or even probabilistic judgments. For example, it has been noticeable to me to see Jamie Dimon publicly assigning probabilities to differing recession/not-recession severity bins rather than just sticking to the usual binary statements often seen in that space.