The authors calls out:
[Important note: here we are not using the term “confidence” in the technical sense used in statistics, but rather as an informal term for “subjective probability”.]
But then goes on to use a very technical, statistical version of confidence where 0% confidence is somehow equal to 100% confidence you picked the wrong answer.
All of this leads me to assert that despite the math being internally consistent, it does not apply well to the situation. A rational outside observer without reading such an article would assume that 0% confidence in your answer is equal to a 50% chance of being right.
The phrase "confidence that the answer is 'true'" can easily be interpreted as "confidence that the answer I marked is correct".
But then goes on to use a very technical, statistical version of confidence where 0% confidence is somehow equal to 100% confidence you picked the wrong answer.
All of this leads me to assert that despite the math being internally consistent, it does not apply well to the situation. A rational outside observer without reading such an article would assume that 0% confidence in your answer is equal to a 50% chance of being right.
The phrase "confidence that the answer is 'true'" can easily be interpreted as "confidence that the answer I marked is correct".