It’s easy to impress people by stroking your chin and declaring “There is a 73% probability Apple’s stock will finish the year 24% above where it started.” Toss in a few technical terms most people don’t understand—“stochastic” this, “regression” that—and you can use people’s justified respect for math and science to get them nodding along. This is granularity as bafflegab. It is unfortunately common. So how can we know that the granularity we see among superforecasters is meaningful?
