The answer to your question depends first on whether the assessment is made by just scanning the headline or after reading the article. I often feel that there is a special place in hell for those who write headlines. On the other hand, the clickbaitiness of their writing is likely built into their job descriptions. So, after looking at the headline alone I would say that the probability is well over 50% and closer to 75%. That would be because just using the word inevitable pushes my perception of the intent towards the high 90s. Even then using the word “far” seems to oblige me to maintain my sense of the probability as quite high. When reading the article the headline drifts away for that time and the probability of war now is evaluated based on the arguments being made, and also most likely other bits of information and opinion gleaned from elsewhere. The problem is that the author never actually answers this conundrum from the headline nor does he really respond to his own question about whether peace is on a knife’s edge. In fact, the latter part of the article is devoted to how peace can be maintained. Which also makes your point that pundits and experts do not often opine in ways that allow for genuine assessment of their statements and predictions.
Another area where the ambiguity of words over numbers comes up is in Human Resources. Performance appraisals often have words like Surpassed, Succeeded, or Satisfactory when assessing meeting work objectives. Even when told that the words correspond to a 5 point scale managers and employees get hung up on their own personal interpretation of the words. I recall as well a test to measure managers emotional intelligence with five choices for specific scenarios. Point five stated that the particular trait being measured was something that was Always done while point one indicated that it was Never demonstrated. I assume that differing interpretations of these words become less relevant with large datasets. However, part of the exercise was to situate the individual taking the test against everyone in their cohort taking the same test as well as against the global results. So, if you are the kind of person who finds it difficult to answer that you Always or Never exhibit some personality traits, you automatically come out as being well off the norm and may be seen as being less emotionally intelligent when you are not.
I originally felt the probability you leaned toward assigning to that headline was pretty high given "nowhere near" seems to indicate the number should be more on the opposing end of the spectrum (ie. 10%). Though I get that 30% away from inevitable could also be an amount that fits with that idea. 90% probability of war is a bit of a stretch :)
I agree with others here that on its own without reading the article it's both dangerously vague and specific. Almost better to be more vague and elaborate in the body.
"War in Taiwan is a lower probability than you'd think from reading the news" or something...
Some need words, so we better learn to articulate and express ourselves. Using numbers may be more precise but it is also the easy way.
I could easily suppose a doctor is educated enough, but the real question is can (or even wishes to) express himself accurately enough to tell you whether one suffers from ca or not.
What probability did you have in mind when you wrote “all but certain” at the end of this newsletter? If I am going to sub I need answers! :)
The answer to your question depends first on whether the assessment is made by just scanning the headline or after reading the article. I often feel that there is a special place in hell for those who write headlines. On the other hand, the clickbaitiness of their writing is likely built into their job descriptions. So, after looking at the headline alone I would say that the probability is well over 50% and closer to 75%. That would be because just using the word inevitable pushes my perception of the intent towards the high 90s. Even then using the word “far” seems to oblige me to maintain my sense of the probability as quite high. When reading the article the headline drifts away for that time and the probability of war now is evaluated based on the arguments being made, and also most likely other bits of information and opinion gleaned from elsewhere. The problem is that the author never actually answers this conundrum from the headline nor does he really respond to his own question about whether peace is on a knife’s edge. In fact, the latter part of the article is devoted to how peace can be maintained. Which also makes your point that pundits and experts do not often opine in ways that allow for genuine assessment of their statements and predictions.
Another area where the ambiguity of words over numbers comes up is in Human Resources. Performance appraisals often have words like Surpassed, Succeeded, or Satisfactory when assessing meeting work objectives. Even when told that the words correspond to a 5 point scale managers and employees get hung up on their own personal interpretation of the words. I recall as well a test to measure managers emotional intelligence with five choices for specific scenarios. Point five stated that the particular trait being measured was something that was Always done while point one indicated that it was Never demonstrated. I assume that differing interpretations of these words become less relevant with large datasets. However, part of the exercise was to situate the individual taking the test against everyone in their cohort taking the same test as well as against the global results. So, if you are the kind of person who finds it difficult to answer that you Always or Never exhibit some personality traits, you automatically come out as being well off the norm and may be seen as being less emotionally intelligent when you are not.
I originally felt the probability you leaned toward assigning to that headline was pretty high given "nowhere near" seems to indicate the number should be more on the opposing end of the spectrum (ie. 10%). Though I get that 30% away from inevitable could also be an amount that fits with that idea. 90% probability of war is a bit of a stretch :)
I agree with others here that on its own without reading the article it's both dangerously vague and specific. Almost better to be more vague and elaborate in the body.
"War in Taiwan is a lower probability than you'd think from reading the news" or something...
Nor all persons are the same, neither all minds.
Some need words, so we better learn to articulate and express ourselves. Using numbers may be more precise but it is also the easy way.
I could easily suppose a doctor is educated enough, but the real question is can (or even wishes to) express himself accurately enough to tell you whether one suffers from ca or not.
Sorry I think there is a small typo. “feel reassured are* alarmed by the doctor’s statement?” I think you meant or.
The reason I commented is because I really like your posts. I hope that helps. You are very busy. Thanks.
Also, frankly I would interpret the answer to the question from words as 65ish percent.
I would interpret 'far from inevitable' to be between 40% and 60%.