Plenty well-covered elsewhere:

But still useful to write down notes for the sake of having to store the information clearly enough to write it.

Subject is ‘when can I expect to be better at X than whatever standard answer society produces’.

Standard economics ideas::

New ideas:

Many reasons for inadequate systems. Proposed rough categorization:

Many, many examples follow.

Much discussion on how to determine if you are rational enough to be able to judge existing debate. Doesn’t seem to reach a satisfying conclusion.

Between Scylla and Charybdis:

Reference class forecasting is very sensitive to choice of reference class.

Pick your battles:

In order of decreasing amounts of time, pay attention to:

Modest epistemology is essentially about avoiding arguments that a crank could use to justify themselves. But any epistemological rule can be abused in bad faith, so this is a poor meta-heuristic.

Everyone thinks that they are better than average, but some people actually are. The former is not a foolproof refutation of the latter.

Theorizes that modest epistemology may be motivated by ‘status regulation’ - making sure that people don’t steal status by attempting projects that predicting future success way in excess of their current status (hence the concern about crank-proof reasoning) - or by ‘anxious underconfidence’ - ‘if you try something more ambitious, you could fail and have everyone think you were stupid to try.’

Don’t assume you can’t do something when it’s very cheap to try testing your ability to do it. Don’t assume other people will evaluate you lowly when it’s cheap to test that belief.

…the number one characteristic of top forecasters, who show the ability to persistently outperform professional analysts and even small prediction markets: they believe that outperformance in forecasting is possible, and work to improve their performance.

Inadequacy is an easy general argument = foot-gun:

…have some common sense; pay more attention to observation than to theory in cases where you’re lucky enough to have both and they happen to conflict; put yourself and your skills on trial in every accessible instance where you’re likely to get an answer within the next minute or the next week; and update hard on single pieces of evidence if you don’t already have twenty others.

Bet on everything where you can or will find out the answer. Even if you’re only testing yourself against one other person, it’s a way of calibrating yourself to avoid both overconfidence and underconfidence, which will serve you in good stead emotionally when you try to do inadequacy reasoning.