Today's entry:
probability. By Louis Menand in
The New Yorker.
It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book, “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton; $35), 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. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake.
Good stuff about rats being smarter than people, and everybody being smarter than the McLaughlin Group, contained therein. (via
MetaFilter, because I'm like three
New Yorkers behind)
# posted by
Gerry Canavan @ 11:24 AM
|