| ▲ | xpe 3 days ago | |||||||
I hope this is a joke. Forecasting and the meta-analysis of forecasters is fairly well studied. [1] is a good place to start. | ||||||||
| ▲ | sigmar 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> The conclusion was that superforecasters' ability to filter out "noise" played a more significant role in improving accuracy than bias reduction or the efficient extraction of information. >In February 2023, Superforecasters made better forecasts than readers of the Financial Times on eight out of nine questions that were resolved at the end of the year.[19] In July 2024, the Financial Times reported that Superforecasters "have consistently outperformed financial markets in predicting the Fed's next move" >In particular, a 2015 study found that key predictors of forecasting accuracy were "cognitive ability [IQ], political knowledge, and open-mindedness".[23] Superforecasters "were better at inductive reasoning, pattern detection, cognitive flexibility, and open-mindedness". I'm really not sure what you want me to take from this article? Do you contend that everyone has the same competency at forecasting stock movements? | ||||||||
| ||||||||