thoughts on “A review of Tetlock’s ‘Superforecasting’ ( ”
Tetlock spends some time setting out potential implications of his research. He argues that there might be a place for pundits in setting the questions for superforecasters to answer, and the hope that these forecasts will be imported into political discourse in order to bring empirical rigor to economic and political debates. A great read, probably the best light read this summer. A book I would recommend to whole-heartedly to anyone, since we are all forecasters. Usually, I am not a fan of the Predictably Irrational/Freakonomics model of turning an academic paper into a full length book but exceptions must be made.
Anyone can predict whether the sun will rise tomorrow, but no one can predict who will win the US Presidential election a century from now. I also enjoyed how Tetlock makes some of the superforecasters into the heroes of the book. He emphasizes their diversity–how they’re just regular people from all backgrounds A Review of “Daily Trading Coach” and walks of life, who share the virtues of being intelligent, curious, up for a challenge, and intellectually humble. While some people are better at predictions than others, about 2% are superforecasters. Forecasting is a learned skill, and you can learn how to do it yourself in this book.
Tetlock argues that without randomized testing, our folk wisdom are essentially shots in the dark. As a faint hearted-empiricist, I cannot agree with him more. Tetlock discusses how many forecasts are unfalsifiable because the time https://www.google.ru/search?newwindow=1&ei=rV7mXfyuO7GImwWQnrGQBw&q=брокер+криптовалют&oq=брокер+криптовалют&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l2j0i22i30l8.1204.1204..1492…0.1..0.68.68.1……0….2j1..gws-wiz…….0i71.7rIrCMvqk1w&ved=0ahUKEwi8ucjRxpnmAhUxxKYKHRBPDHIQ4dUDCAo&uact=5 frame is too vague, the event is ill defined and language can be ambiguous (maybe, significant, probably). A point that Tetlock makes that I thought was important is that not all forecasts have the purpose of being accurate.
In the aftermath of disastrous intelligence forecasts about Iraq’s WMD, an obscure American intelligence agency explored Tetlock’s ideas. They created an online tournament in which thousands of volunteers would make many predictions. They framed specific questions with specific timescales, required forecasts using numerical probability scales, and created a robust statistical scoring system. Tetlock created a team – the Good Judgement Project (GJP) – to compete in the tournament. The other big thing, which the second paper doesn’t really mention, is how hard they were trying.
Superforecasting Key Idea #3: Keep score if you want to improve the accuracy of your forecasts.
And as Tetlock and company dig deeper, it becomes clear that the key to forecasting accuracy – to becoming a superforecaster – isn’t about computing power or complex algorithms or secret formulas. Instead, it’s about a mindset, a desire to devote one’s intellectual powers to a flexibility of thought. The accuracy of these superforecasters springs from their ability to understand probability and to work as a team, as well as an acceptance of the possibility of error and a willingness to change one’s mind. Despite this, Tetlock thinks that storytelling and hedgehoggery are valuable if handled correctly.
It involves gathering evidence from a variety of sources, thinking probabilistically, working in teams, keeping score, and being willing to admit error and change course. Superforecasting offers the first demonstrably effective way to improve our ability to predict the future—whether in business, finance, politics, international affairs, or daily life—and is destined to become a modern classic. In “Superforecasters,” we get a chance to look a little closer at some of these remarkably gifted individuals. Tetlock offers analysis of some past predictions that were successful and others that were failures. We also get insight from prominent figures in the intelligence community and from people ensconced in the public and private sectors alike.
- Superforecasters is a write up of the authors’ Good Judgement Project, an IARPA (Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency) effort to systemically study predictions.
- While the regular guys scored 70 percent more in intelligence, superforecasters displayed 80 percent.
- I think we agree that extremism maximizes chances of winning when you have lots of forecasters and few questions.
The Good Judgment Project involves tens of thousands of ordinary people—including a Brooklyn filmmaker, a retired pipe installer, and https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/retainedearnings.asp a former ballroom dancer—who set out to forecast global events. Some of the volunteers have turned out to be astonishingly good.
“Independent forecasters made an average of 1.4 predictions per question, and regular teams made an average of 1.6. The surprising result was that super- forecasters made an average of 7.8 predictions per question. Their engagement was extraordinary.” So clearly the superforecasters were actually trying at this game, constantly updating their probabilities as the facts changed, etc.
My impression is that the score on a single question is the integral over time of score of the prediction current at those times. So if A and B are both 100 days in the future and I answer A once today but answer B every day, that doesn’t count as 1 prediction of A and 100 predictions of B, but 100 prediction-days https://forexarena.net/trading-with-the-price-rate-of-change-indicator-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/ of each. (Or maybe things are divided by time open, so all questions are equal weight.) I think skipped questions were interpreted differently for different people. Elsewhere, Jon says that for (some?) people with access to a group, skipped questions are interpreted as following the average.
Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction
They’ve beaten other benchmarks, competitors, and prediction markets. They’ve even beaten the collective judgment of intelligence analysts with access to classified https://forexarena.net/ information. They are “superforecasters.” In this groundbreaking and accessible book, Tetlock and Gardner show us how we can learn from this elite group.
Philip Tetlock’s “Superforecasting”: Book Review, Notes + Analysis
If you answer 100-day question on the last day, that’s 99% imputed predictions and 1% real predictions. It’s well-written and clear, and does a nice job of balancing general points https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel with illustrative examples. I really liked how thoughtfully Tetlock discusses all the background issues that one has to think about carefully before one can study this topic.