In his expert opinion.
(no message)
(no message)
The result: The experts were, by and large, horrific forecasters. Their areas of specialty, years of experience, and (for some) access to classified information made no difference. They were bad at short-term forecasting and bad at long-term forecasting. They were bad at forecasting in every domain. When experts declared that future events were impossible or nearly impossible, 15 percent of them occurred nonetheless. When they declared events to be a sure thing, more than one-quarter of them failed to transpire. As the Danish proverb warns, “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”
Even faced with their results, many experts never admitted systematic flaws in their judgment. When they missed wildly, it was a near miss; if just one little thing had gone differently, they would have nailed it. “There is often a curiously inverse relationship,” Tetlock concluded, “between how well forecasters thought they were doing and how well they did.”
I also know Phil Tetlock. Not well, but a bit. Forecasting is hard, especially about the future.
(no message)
I was actually paraphrasing Yogi Berra. But whatever.
I am very familiar with the hedgehogs-vs-foxes stuff.
One of us wrote a book on forecasting in international politics. Maybe two, if you did too.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Who would you want predicting though, someone who knows something about the subject, or those who know nothing? Nevermind you voted for one of the know nothings in 2016.
I think it is time we let someone else fly the planes.
(no message)