The Remarkable Inability of Experts to Accurately Predict the Right Course of Action

The Remarkable Inability of Experts to Accurately Predict the Right Course of Action

Scientific proof of the routine error and misunderstanding and predictions by so called Experts…

Before anyone turns an ear to an expert, they might do well to obtain a copy of Phillip Tetlock’s new book on the scientific study of the failure of Expert Judgment; Dr Tetlock reports on a 20-year study of predictions by experts on TV and who get quoted in newspapers; he found that they are no better than chance at being correct!

Amplify’d from www.amazon.com

Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? [Paperback]


Philip E. Tetlock (Author)

is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book . . . that people who make prediction their business–people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables–are no better than the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. . . . It would be nice if there were fewer partisans on television disguised as “analysts” and “experts”. . . . But the best lesson of Tetlock’s book may be the one that he seems most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself. — Louis Menand, The New Yorker

Before anyone turns an ear to the panels of pundits, they might do well to obtain a copy of Phillip Tetlock’s new book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? The Berkeley psychiatrist has apparently made a 20-year study of predictions by the sorts who appear as experts on TV and get quoted in newspapers and found that they are no better than the rest of us at prognostication. — Jim Coyle, Toronto Star

Editorial Reviews

Review

It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book . . . that people who make prediction their business–people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables–are no better than the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. . . . It would be nice if there were fewer partisans on television disguised as “analysts” and “experts”. . . . But the best lesson of Tetlock’s book may be the one that he seems most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself. — Louis Menand, The New Yorker

Before anyone turns an ear to the panels of pundits, they might do well to obtain a copy of Phillip Tetlock’s new book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? The Berkeley psychiatrist has apparently made a 20-year study of predictions by the sorts who appear as experts on TV and get quoted in newspapers and found that they are no better than the rest of us at prognostication. — Jim Coyle, Toronto Star

Tetlock uses science and policy to brilliantly explore what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events and to examine why experts are often wrong in their forecasts. — Choice

[This] book . . . Marshals powerful evidence to make [its] case. Expert Political Judgment . . . Summarizes the results of a truly amazing research project. . . . The question that screams out from the data is why the world keeps believing that “experts” exist at all. — Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune

Philip Tetlock has just produced a study which suggests we should view expertise in political forecasting–by academics or intelligence analysts, independent pundits, journalists or institutional specialists–with the same skepticism that the well-informed now apply to stockmarket forecasting. . . . It is the scientific spirit with which he tackled his project that is the most notable thing about his book, but the findings of his inquiry are important and, for both reasons, everyone seriously concerned with forecasting, political risk, strategic analysis and public policy debate would do well to read the book. — Paul Monk, Australian Financial Review

Phillip E. Tetlock does a remarkable job . . . applying the high-end statistical and methodological tools of social science to the alchemistic world of the political prognosticator. The result is a fascinating blend of science and storytelling, in the the best sense of both words. — William D. Crano, PsysCRITIQUES

Mr. Tetlock’s analysis is about political judgment but equally relevant to economic and commercial assessments. — John Kay, Financial Times

Why do most political experts prove to be wrong most of time? For an answer, you might want to browse through a very fascinating study by Philip Tetlock . . . who in Expert Political Judgment contends that there is no direct correlation between the intelligence and knowledge of the political expert and the quality of his or her forecasts. If you want to know whether this or that pundit is making a correct prediction, don’t ask yourself what he or she is thinking–but how he or she is thinking. — Leon Hadar, Business Times

Review

This book is a landmark in both content and style of argument. It is a major advance in our understanding of expert judgment in the vitally important and almost impossible task of political and strategic forecasting. Tetlock also offers a unique example of even-handed social science. This may be the first book I have seen in which the arguments and objections of opponents are presented with as much care as the author’s own position.
(Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University, recipient of the 2002 Nobel Prize in economic sciences )

Read more at www.amazon.com

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s