In many polls on continuous variables over the last year, I’ve seen lognormal distributions typically fit poll responses well. And of course lognormals are also one of the most common distributions in nature. So let’s consider the possibility that, regarding problem areas like global warming, falling fertility, or nuclear war, distributions of priority estimate are lognormal.
See if their info clues are re subareas.
“ Unless estimate variance reflects mostly true variance within an area, prefer high medians over high averages.”
So how do you determine the extent to which estimate variance reflects true variance within an area? Is it by asking people more detailed questions about the rationale for their prioritization of that area?
To the extent this is correct, our extent of concern over a given subject should be guided by the logarithms of people's expressed concern.
I am surprised to see that your Lizardmen's constant seems to be only 2% but in any case something like that should probably be used to estimate the maximum achievable precision.
Note that priorities as set by medians are quite different from those set by averages.Pedantic note: A median is a kind of average (as is a mode, which unfortunately for abbreviation also starts with an 'm'), being a measure of a central tendency. I'm pretty sure you meant to contrast it with the mean (and specifically the arithmetic rather than geometric or harmonic mean).