Experts must love making predictions. They keep right on predicting, even though by any reasonable standard, they're terrible at it.
Many of them, though intelligent and well-informed, nonetheless have difficulty even beating a random guess about future events—or, if you will, beating the proverbial dart-throwing chimp. This applies to many realms of human activity, but above all to politics, and the subject of expert political judgment forms this month's theme at Cato Unbound.
Once we grasp that the experts aren't so reliable at predicting the future, a question arises How can we do better? Some events will always be unpredictable, of course, but this month's lead authors, Dan Gardner and Philip E. Tetlock, suggest a few ways that the experts might still be able to improve.
To discuss with them, we've invited economist and futurologist Robin Hanson of George Mason University, Professor of Finance and Cato Adjunct Scholar John H. Cochrane, and political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. Each will offer a commentary on Gardner and Tetlock’s essay, followed by a discussion among the panelists lasting through the end of the month.
Robin Hanson is an associate professor of economics at George Mason University and a research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University. He has a doctorate in social science, master's degrees in physics and philosophy, and nine years of experience as a research programmer in artificial intelligence and Bayesian statistics. With over 3100 citations and sixty academic publications, he's recognized not only for his contributions to economics (especially, pioneering the theory and use of prediction markets), but also for the wide range of fields in which he's been published. He is the author of The Age of Em: Work, Love, and Life when Robots Rule the Earth (OUP 2016).
Un interesante y breve documento donde varios economistas aportan puntos de vista acerca de por qué las predicciones de los expertos fallan tanto, y qué se puede hacer. Me quedo con dos ideas: una es que aquello relacionado con la conducta humana puede tener la impredictibilidad como característica de bien funcionamiento. La otra es que la teoría de juegos parece acabar siendo lo que da mejores resultados.
Отново серията на Cato Institute, отново четирима академици и отново спор с интелектуални есета.
Този път темата е експертите по всякакви въпроси, защо те толкова често грешат и никой не им търси сметка и най-вече защо аджеба хората, медиите и най-вече правителствата продължават да им вярват, при условие, че тия експерти познават точно толкова, колкото и ако хвърляха монета и в общия случай по-рядко, отколкото обикновена екстраполация, а статистическите модели са в пъти по-точни.
Любопитен поглед в сферата на "експертизата", полезен за всеки, който слуша някой да се изказва компетентно "по телевизора" или чете предсказанията за икономика/политика/каквото и да е във вестника.