“Unassisted human intuition is a bomb”
I blogged last month about Philip Tetlock’s book Expert Political Judgment. Reviews of the book suggested that Tetlock’s two main conclusions were: 1) Experts are really bad at making predictions; and 2) Experts who typified Isaiah Berlin’s “hedgehogs” did far worse than those who were “foxes.” (and no, that doesn’t mean Salma Hayek or Scarlet ...
I blogged last month about Philip Tetlock's book Expert Political Judgment. Reviews of the book suggested that Tetlock's two main conclusions were: 1) Experts are really bad at making predictions; and 2) Experts who typified Isaiah Berlin's "hedgehogs" did far worse than those who were "foxes." (and no, that doesn't mean Salma Hayek or Scarlet Johansson -- we're talking about indifferent kinds of foxes here). Today, Carl Bialik -- the Wall Street Journal's Numbers Guy -- has a follow-up story that corrects one potential misperception about the utility of experts: they might not be great predictors, but they are still better informed than you are -- which means they are still better predictors. The New Yorker's review of [Tetlock's] book surveyed the grim state of expert political predictions and concluded by advising readers, "Think for yourself." Prof. Tetlock isn't sure he agrees with that advice. He pointed out an exercise he conducted in the course of his research, in which he gave Berkeley undergraduates brief reports from Facts on File about political hot spots, then asked them to make forecasts. Their predictions -- based on far less background knowledge than his pundits called upon -- were the worst he encountered, even less accurate than the worst hedgehogs. "Unassisted human intuition is a bomb here," Prof. Tetlock told me. And that's your quote of the day.
I blogged last month about Philip Tetlock’s book Expert Political Judgment. Reviews of the book suggested that Tetlock’s two main conclusions were:
1) Experts are really bad at making predictions; and 2) Experts who typified Isaiah Berlin’s “hedgehogs” did far worse than those who were “foxes.” (and no, that doesn’t mean Salma Hayek or Scarlet Johansson — we’re talking about indifferent kinds of foxes here).
Today, Carl Bialik — the Wall Street Journal‘s Numbers Guy — has a follow-up story that corrects one potential misperception about the utility of experts: they might not be great predictors, but they are still better informed than you are — which means they are still better predictors.
The New Yorker’s review of [Tetlock’s] book surveyed the grim state of expert political predictions and concluded by advising readers, “Think for yourself.” Prof. Tetlock isn’t sure he agrees with that advice. He pointed out an exercise he conducted in the course of his research, in which he gave Berkeley undergraduates brief reports from Facts on File about political hot spots, then asked them to make forecasts. Their predictions — based on far less background knowledge than his pundits called upon — were the worst he encountered, even less accurate than the worst hedgehogs. “Unassisted human intuition is a bomb here,” Prof. Tetlock told me.
And that’s your quote of the day.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
