| |||||||||||||||||||
| Most experts tend to dismiss new information that doesnt fit with what they already believe.From a review published in the New Yorker Excerpts: Experts have been shown to use a double standard: We are not natural falsificationists: we would rather find more reasons for believing what we already believe than look for reasons that we might be wrong. The lesson of Philip Tetlocks new book, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Princeton; $35), that people who make prediction their businesspeople who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtablesare no better than the rest of us. When theyre wrong they rarely admit it. He shows that Experts insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be. The accuracy of an experts predictions actually has an inverse relationship to his or her self-confidence, renown, and, beyond a certain point, depth of knowledge. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake. Tetlock found that, consistent with this asymmetry, experts routinely misremembered the degree of probability they had assigned to an event after it came to pass. They claimed to have predicted what happened with a higher degree of certainty than, according to the record, they really did. When this was pointed out to them, by Tetlocks researchers, they sometimes became defensive. But the best lesson of Tetlocks book may be the one that he seems most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself. |
|
Disclaimer Notice:-Information on this web
site is provided for informational purposes only. |