watertank: (Default)
watertank ([personal profile] watertank) wrote2008-07-01 04:06 pm
Entry tags:

Indicators of Good Judgement in Politics

Philip Tetlock, USB

This chapter summarizes some research results on expert political judgment that bear on debates among experimental psychologists over alleged departures from rationality in human judgment.
...well-known errors or biases:
(1) Overconfidence. [ a large gap b/w subjective probabilities and outcome ].
(2) Cognitive conservatism. [ experts are too slow to update their beliefs ].
(3) Certainty of hindsight. [ experts deny mistakes altogether ].
(4) Theory-driven standards of evidence and proof. [ experts impose higher standards of evidence and proof on dissonant claims than they do on consonant ones].
(5) Systematic evidence of incoherence in sbjective probability judgments. [ political observers are highly susceptible to the subadditivity effects. ... judge the likelihood of the whole to be less, sometimes far less, the the sum of its parts.

Why Foxes are better forecasters than Hedgehogs ( video, english).

P.E. Tetlock's talk at Long Now

"the more mediagenic the forecaster, the less likely his/her forecast is going to happen".

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting