I can’t follow your reasoning.
How does asking you the exact same question twice improve your accuracy? If you don’t know how high the Eiffel Tower is, why would you know it the second time? Conversely, you likely created a mental anchor when giving an estimate the first time and would be hard pressed to provide an answer contradicting your first estimate - even if it might be more accurate.
There were no answers provided between asking the questions as far as I understand this excerpt.
In the group only 4/8 questions were asked and here a difference in accuracy can be made. Maybe you’re mixed with travelers who recently visited Paris, historians or people who due to other circumstances or pure luck provide more accurate estimates, effectively influencing the anchor of your first estimate.
Given more time I can remember something, or I can notice that the last question gives some hints or even unrelated associations that help to answer the first question.
I don't think "if you don't know the answer in 20 seconds you won't ever know it" is true.
As far as I understand it, these were not simple right/ wrong questions, but questions about estimating a continuous measure (height, age, percentages). I have no reason to believe that questions were related or would give hints. Such a correlation would destroy the power of the experiment.
As far as I understand it, this paper is not about "Do you know what is true or false in 20 seconds" but "what is a value you confidently estimate within 20 seconds". This is a field much studied in psychology and when you look into Kahnemann and associated research I would be surprised to find any scientific evidence that time improves your estimate. I'm not saying it's impossible, I am confident that - on average - it simply does not happen.
Kahnemann showed we're full of biases and this research shows that calibrating ourselves with others is a much higher predictor of improving accuracy of estimations than time.
Wow, that’s a terrible way of conducting an experiment. Having more than 20 seconds to reason through an estimation will produce a much better result if you are any kind of systematic thinker.
In 20 seconds for the Eiffel Tower I’ll just pull a number out of my ass. In 5 minutes I will think through the comparison charts it shows up next to on other high rises. I’ll remember the half scale one in Las Vegas and its relative height to the Bellagio across the strip (about the same) and that the Bellagio was about 40 stories. Given 40 stories at 13 feet per floor, you get 520 ft * 2 = 1040 ft for the Eiffel Tower.
> I don't think "if you don't know the answer in 20 seconds you won't ever know it" is true.
Exactly. And being placed on the spot with someone waiting for an answer makes me more forgetful. Once the pressure is off, I immediately think of many possibilities and can more accurately evaluate their likelihood.
There were no answers provided between asking the questions as far as I understand this excerpt.
In the group only 4/8 questions were asked and here a difference in accuracy can be made. Maybe you’re mixed with travelers who recently visited Paris, historians or people who due to other circumstances or pure luck provide more accurate estimates, effectively influencing the anchor of your first estimate.