It's worth noticing that in the first part (Paul Saffo forecasting), the problem is all in one head. Saffo recognizes an unintuitive methodology: strong opinions weakly held. He's only really dealing with himself, his intuitions, tactics that work for him.
The second part gets social:
"you’ve decided, along with your boss, to build a particular type of product for a particular subsection of the self-service checkout market."
This is a good example, imo. These decisions are made with imperfect information, and they incorporate a lot of interlocking opinions. Ex ante can only get you so far. You need to make a decision and start rowing to progress, change paths when necessary.
Multiple people are involved. Credibility is on the line, among many subtle subroutines of group psychology that we aren't even aware of. The solution from Tetlock, express your opinion as a probability, is a solution to the problem in its group form. When people are in meetings making big decisions, a lot more than the big decisions is going on. Human power dynamics are taking place. Being right can play a very small role in these.
I think the author has a blindspot. "This is not how the human brain works" is one kind of challenge. "This is not how human groups work" is another. It isn't a derivative of the first.