Reaffirming my forecast.

The question is stated as delivery of a "S-300 or S-400 missile system." A "system" requires all the major operational components to be delivered (search radar, targeting radar, missile launcher, command post, etc.). Regarding hiding the system, while I agree that generally you don't want to give away the exact location of your military assets, it is important to credibly signal your enemies if you expect to deter them. Most of the Iranian comments to this point are probably inward directed, to create a sense of strength in the aftermath of the nuclear deal with the West. Outward directed statements (to Israel) will come when the system is actually functioning.

Files
redacted
made a comment:

@000: Thanks for the link to the Nolan thesis. I quite enjoyed it. It provided both a number of useful insights and sources of frustration. The phenomena of the "Social Construct of Precision" was interesting.
@000 & @cmeinel: Just a quick story on Training. In general, training might be segregated into "Scoring" and "Prediction." In terms of Scoring, @morrell and @Khalid (I think) have offered some handy tips. In terms of Prediction, I am reminded of a phrase (from Blackstone?) about the "infinite variety of human creativity" or the like. Perhaps with the exception of the probabilistic approach apparently outlined in the Tetlock book (which I will eventually buy), and the causal concepts of "system decomposition" (Newell/Simon) and "nearly decomposable systems" (B. Russell), I'm not sure how one could present training that is suitable to all problem cases. I was once charged with supervising a freelancer of sorts as he advised participants in a program for which I had overall responsibility. He had come highly recommended, had an impressive pedigree (Bell Labs), the participants were pleased, and I could see the project was moving forward most satisfactorily. I must have engaged him in three or four different conversations in an attempt to find out the method of his success, and I must say that these conversations were some of the most curious that I have ever had. As I recall, his general message was that he could not provide to me a general methodology, but only "a bag of tools." You can't imagine my dismay. Here I was, paying this advisor major sums of money, and all he could tell me was that he had some "bag of tools!" It has taken me years to see how right he was. You can't have a methodology of any specificity for an infinite variety of problems. The real trick is in diagnosing the problem perhaps. This, along with knowledge of your toolset, will together provide the solution.

Files
Inactive-102
made a comment:

Oh no, they had a nice 20 page PowerPoint with a drill on how to think with base rates and whatnot wrapped up in a nice acronym like CHEESY SPEEKS or SPICEY NICE. Alas, I have forgotten the mnemonics. They swore the drill was worth 20 points of accuracy though. I have suffered the consequences of not remembering it.

Files
53
made a comment:

@einsteinjs - yes, I've had that problem with being another user too. At least once I was you, though apparently now I am @redacted. Which means, some strong possibility that it's related to the @ mentions. I got here via a link in an email notification of a mention, so... Will go report it now.

Haven't been able to repeat it though, since I added this comment. So now I wonder if it only happens when going to a comment thread that you have not as yet participated in, other than being mentioned.

Files
Inactive-5001
made a comment:

@redacted
in the end, despite all the broad brush presented in the book, no one knows for sure what makes a "superforecaster". They come in all varieties and I am convinced that everyone succeeds according to his own "bag of tools". FWIW, I never could get anything useful out of the "CHAMPS KNOW" and to this day I consider it quite silly (that's putting it mildly).

Files
username-deleted 688
made a comment:

I have not noticed any of my comments edited by friendly hackers / scrapers, but would you quit hiding my menu bar when you are done on my home computer? Sheesh! You may be Ansaonymous but practice tradecraft! ;)

Files
Khalid
made a comment:

Lots to comment about here! I second the suggestions given by @000 especially
2. Add the ability for all forecasters to download in some convenient form (base case is Excel spreadsheet .CSV format) all of the data on the site (questions, users, forecasts, comments).
3. Add the ability for users to create discussion forum topics outside of questions (we had this ability last year).

I'm not holding my breath for these, though, because the "graphs and stats" still don't superimpose our own forecast history on the overall trends, despite being told quite some time ago that GJI is working on it. This was already available in the original GJP. In some cases we've gained a snazzier interface but lost functionality.

I was in teams for both my GJP years, and possibly the best part was the ability to have general discussions. In the present format, discussions such as the one on this thread tend to get lost very quickly. However, discussions here are much more lively and responses are almost guaranteed, unlike in the small team format.
What I like about this open format is that I get to read comments from everyone instead of just perhaps half a dozen team-mates. Similarly, the "consensus" is arrived at from hundreds of forecasts, and is therefore likely to be more accurate. I expect the overall accuracy on this site will be better (even though current Brier Scores are terrible).
The biggest problem for me on this site is that I'm spending ("wasting", at the cost of my real life) too much time reading as many comments as I can. When time is short, I end up reading only those I'm following but that's still more than 80 people. It's going to be hard to keep up. Are we ever going to emerge from this Beta phase?
As to why I'm doing this, I've been treating it as an educational game, and it's an addiction.

Files
username-deleted 688
made a comment:

In last season, from Decemer/January, I was isolated in a group of 5, and no one talked, one made 3 forecast then disappeared. I could see no other comments but my own, and final score included some interaction and up vote type analysis for which I ( my group of dead people ) had none. It was a test of will and sheer determination to complete the season, rank our group up to 5th place, Brier .331 final. I am here to see what a super looks, thinks and acts like. :)

Files
Khalid
made a comment:

It was obviously no picnic being a guinea pig in isolation! I thought one of the reasons for GJP's success was the team format, as a result of which small groups put together at random were able to work together to collectively improve the team score. It's true that there are quite a few inactive members - in my first year only 5 out of 15 contributed regularly, though the second year was better, with about 7 out of 10. That's probably why our team in the second year was ranked #2 out of 50 in its group, compared to #15 in the previous year. Being able to discuss rationales and adjust accordingly is a big advantage.

Files
Inactive-102
made a comment:

@Dima-K, thanks for reminding me about CHAMPS KNOW. I kept thinking SPICEY NICEY and DONKEY WONKEY and now I remember it, I can Google for it and dig it up. @GJDrew, @WarrenHatch, it's a bit of a mystery why these training modules are not in your "Training" section even though they were made available to your competitors back in the day (the Internets never forget):

http://blog.scicast.org/2014/12/16/introducing-scicast-courses/

Files
Inactive-43
made a comment:

@000 OK, here's the "cheesy mnemonic." I found it to be useful in GJP, back when we were playing a fair game:

Comparison classes. Provide relevant classes and calculate base rates.
Hunt for info. Share the evidence that helps inform your prediction.
Adjust. Explain the reason for updating your prediction.
Models. Explain any application of mathematical or statistical models.
Post-mortem. Interpret past failures and successes; draw implications for the future.
Select effort. Describe the optimal level of effort.
Know the power-players. Describe individuals with influence and how will they use it.
Norms & protocols. Describe laws, rules, scheduled meetings, etc., that matter.
Other perspectives. Describe bottom-up processes (protest, culture, market forces, technology, etc.) that may play a role.
Wildcards. Explain the sources and magnitude of uncertainty.

Files
Files
Tip: Mention someone by typing @username