Aka Forecast delusion, the phenomenon of False prophets" is a current issue. From TV personalities to bench experts, we are in the era of experts with crystal balls conjuring up forecasts. I have been grappling with this question of authenticity, methodology, and, more importantly, the rationality of such predictions.
Philip Tetlock, a Canadian-American political psychologist, has examined the accuracy of various forecasts and reported a staggering underwhelming performance. Most of these media darlings only marginally outperform random predictions. This annoying reality is more pronounced amongst the "prophets of doom and disintegration".
According to John Kenneth Galbraith, there are two types of forecasters: those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know.
In the book "The Art of Thinking Clearly", Rolf Dobelli mentions two questions we should ask to distinguish predictions that are noteworthy from a multitude of worthless ones.
First is what is the incentive behind the forecasts? Is there any accountability anywhere in case of off-the-mark predictions? Are we dealing with a relentless machine that makes money based on the number of prophecies it presents? Is a job or status at risk if the forecasts turn out to be failures?
The second solution is the retrospective investigation. What has been the success rate of each expert?
After all, some success rate can be a sign of a more reliable and scientific methodology.
Pedram
12/18/25
No comments:
Post a Comment