
The inherent ambiguity of probability language in news and intelligence reporting often leads to significant misinterpretations of risk. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology and author of *Proof*, explains that while numerical probabilities like 80% offer clarity, verbal descriptors such as "realistic possibility" are highly subjective. Historical precedents, such as a 1951 CIA report on a potential Soviet invasion, demonstrate how intelligence analysts and policymakers can hold wildly different numerical interpretations of the same phrase. Data from a study of over 5,000 participants reveals that while terms like "about even" or "almost certain" have high consensus, "realistic possibility" is the most volatile, with interpretations ranging from 10% to near certainty. Standardizing these terms through "probability yardsticks" and demanding numerical accountability from experts can prevent communicators from using vague language to avoid responsibility for inaccurate predictions.
Sign in to continue reading, translating and more.
Continue