This method has actually been discussed for some time now, and I'm surprised the abstract wasn't written that way. I think it was referred to as the "oracle method" in a prior publication, although it's been awhile. I tried looking for it but realized all the keywords I would think of first bring up many unrelated hits.
The previous paper I'm thinking of couched it in terms of identifying experts, I think, under the premise that experts should both understand others' predictions and have a more accurate prediction, and therefore should be weightedly more heavily. But the upshot was the same: that surprisingly correct answers were more likely to be accurate.
I might be remembering the details incorrectly, but my first thought when I saw this was "oh, I wonder if this is a new paper by that same group."
1 comment
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 6.7 ms ] threadhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v541/n7638/full/nature2...
This method has actually been discussed for some time now, and I'm surprised the abstract wasn't written that way. I think it was referred to as the "oracle method" in a prior publication, although it's been awhile. I tried looking for it but realized all the keywords I would think of first bring up many unrelated hits.
The previous paper I'm thinking of couched it in terms of identifying experts, I think, under the premise that experts should both understand others' predictions and have a more accurate prediction, and therefore should be weightedly more heavily. But the upshot was the same: that surprisingly correct answers were more likely to be accurate.
I might be remembering the details incorrectly, but my first thought when I saw this was "oh, I wonder if this is a new paper by that same group."