> 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?

> I'm really not sure what you want me to take from this article?

I linked to the Wikipedia page as a way of pointing to the book Superforecasters by Tetlock and Gardner. If forecasting interests you, I recommend using it as a jumping off point.

> Do you contend that everyone has the same competency at forecasting stock movements?

No, and I'm not sure why you are asking me this. Superforecasters does not make that claim.

> I'm really not sure what you want me to take from this article?

If you read the book and process and internalize its lessons properly, I predict you will view what you wrote above in a different different light:

> Gotta auto grade every HN comment for how good it is at predicting stock market movement then check what the "most frequently correct" user is saying about the next 6 months.

Namely, you would have many reasons to doubt such a project from the outset and would pursue other more fruitful directions.