We’d save a lot of time and money—and put a dent in global
disappointments—if we would just stop trying to predict the future.
I’m not talking about refusing to claim that the sun will
rise in the east next Tuesday.
I’m not talking about the meteorologist who forecasts that
it will rain in the Chicago area in the next six hours.
I’m not talking about the guy who says “My wife isn’t going
to like this one bit.”
I’m not talking about treating worsening global climate
change as a life-threatening certainty.
I’m talking about predicting a bear market on Wall Street.
I’m talking about the jabbering about who’s going to be the Republican
presidential nominee. I’m talking about experts who insist on predicting next
month’s employment figures.
It’s just not possible to forecast a contingent future event
with any precision. Too many variables.
Too many unknowables.
A few years ago Philip Tetlock (Expert Political Judgment, 2005) analyzed 82,361 predictions
offered by 284 acclaimed “experts” in various fields, including journalism,
economics and political science.
His findings: about 15 percent of the events classified as “no
way” actually happened, and roughly 27 percent of the “oh yeah, bet on it”
events somehow didn’t become reality. In a New York Times book review, Tetlock
was quoted saying these “experts” did about as well as “a dart-throwing chimp.”
I’ll rub it in by mentioning that the chimps will work for bananas.
Most of the “experts” who forecast next month’s national
employment numbers get it wrong every single month.
Why do we keep paying attention to them?
Why do we keep paying the “experts” to make wrong guesses
about the future?
Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2015 All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment