« Back to challenges

Polarization v. Prediction: Iran (2016)

Oct 19, 2016 06:59AM UTC (8 years ago)

Philip Tetlock and Peter Scoblic argue that asking falsifiable questions and forecasting on them has the potential to moderate polarizing policy debates because accountability fundamentally alters the parameters of the discussion. This challenge will test the hypothesis by allowing forecasters to weigh in on what the Iranian nuclear deal means for Iran, the US, the Middle East, and the world. To participate, please: 1) Join the challenge and forecast! 2) Answer the below Questionaire on your views about the Iran nuclear deal. This will allow GJ to generate aggregated statistics on the accuracy of the opposing camps and test whether forecasting has a moderating effect on opinions. 3) Propose questions. Go to the Open Question and make suggestions about what we should be asking. We want suggested questions from both sides of the debate!

Sort By

Filter By

No questions match your filter.
Tip: Mention someone by typing @username