The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
theatlantic.com
The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#2Predicting anything is a gamble. One simply does not know what will happen but one makes assumptions.
Let'ś take weather forecasting as an example. It is difficult to do it right for 5 days and often goes wrong for 10 days. But when you ask a group of scientist a simple question, like "Do you think that humans contribute to the rise of CO2 ?" and 97% say "yeah", then you can make a new assumption: CO2 will probably rise fast and we can make a new climate model that goes beyond 10-day forecasts and we assume that we can accurately forecast what happens in 80 years. Most, however, do not realise that they assume a lot.
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#3Hedgehogs (experts) know one big thing, while foxes (generalists) know many little things. However, foxes seem to be better at predicting the future than hedgehogs, because they constantly challenge their worldview and see their own ideas as hypotheses in need of testing. So maybe the reason why foxes are more successful forecasters is that they focus on learning, their "one big thing" strategy.
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#4Predicting anything is a gamble. One simply does not know what will happen but one makes assumptions. Let'ś take weather forecasting as an example. It is difficult to do it right for 5 days and often goes wrong for 10 days. But when you ask a group of scientist a simple question, like "Do you think that humans contribute to the rise of CO2 ?" and 97% say "yeah", then you can make a new assumption: CO2 will probably r…
You seem to be implying that climate forecasting can't possibly be accurate because weather forecasting is time-limited.
That's not correct. Climate and weather forecasting are different disciplines based on different models.
Of course you can't forecast whether it will be raining on a specific day twenty years from now. But you can certainly make a good estimate of how likely drought is.
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#5I like the conclusion of the article that broad knowledge is needed to do good predictions.
But, I do not see the point on going against experts. Probably the learning is that the most convinced and self-assured you are in a topic the easier is to get things wrong.
Take any non-expert that is sure and vocal about a future event and probably is wrong also.
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#6Predicting anything is a gamble. One simply does not know what will happen but one makes assumptions. Let'ś take weather forecasting as an example. It is difficult to do it right for 5 days and often goes wrong for 10 days. But when you ask a group of scientist a simple question, like "Do you think that humans contribute to the rise of CO2 ?" and 97% say "yeah", then you can make a new assumption: CO2 will probably r…
> Predicting anything is a gamble.
And casinos win all the time.
Yes gambling and predicting are interconnected. They both share a common history.
> One simply does not know what will happen but one makes assumptions.
Tomorrow the sun will rise. I do not know, it is just an assumption. But, I am quite certain of it. :)
> we assume that we can accurately forecast what happens in 80 years.
Nobody assumes that. Nobody forecasts the weather in 80 years. What scientists forecast is climate changes not the weather.
In the casino I cannot predict which players will win and which lose (weather). And yet I can predict that they will lose on average and the casino win (climate).
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#7Hedgehogs (experts) know one big thing, while foxes (generalists) know many little things. However, foxes seem to be better at predicting the future than hedgehogs, because they constantly challenge their worldview and see their own ideas as hypotheses in need of testing. So maybe the reason why foxes are more successful forecasters is that they focus on learning, their "one big thing" strategy.
> However, [generalists] seem to be better at predicting the future than [experts], because they constantly challenge their worldview and see their own ideas as hypotheses in need of testing.
What? No. You're implying that experts do not challenge their own beleives and ideas about the world.
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#8> Two days later, a team member with experience in finance saw that the hryvnia was strengthening amid events he’d thought would surely weaken it. He informed his teammates that this was exactly the opposite of what he’d expected, and that they should take it as a sign of something wrong in his understanding.
This is an experience every young trader ever has had many, many times. Myself included. You see an economic figure, you think "hey this should do x", and it doesn't do what you think. The senior trader on the desk will remind you that your wrongness is worthy of further thought.
Keep in mind that prices are themselves predictions. You are predicting what people will predict.
If you're wondering why the talking heads get things wrong, it's mainly because they are talking heads. They're paid to say something interesting, not to make money betting on it. That includes the banks' own analysts! They don't have money on the line, they are sales people at core. I've personally had conversations where the same guy will tell me to buy AND sell the same thing (USDJPY in that case). As long as I do it with him.
But mainly the guys making pronouncements on TV are there to get themselves another slot on TV.
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#9Interestingly, the article gives a tested recipe for creating a forecasting team. I wonder if it has been used for more important matters since, or maybe an expert committee advised against it :)
Re: The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
#10Hedgehogs (experts) know one big thing, while foxes (generalists) know many little things. However, foxes seem to be better at predicting the future than hedgehogs, because they constantly challenge their worldview and see their own ideas as hypotheses in need of testing. So maybe the reason why foxes are more successful forecasters is that they focus on learning, their "one big thing" strategy.
> However, [generalists] seem to be better at predicting the future than [experts], because they constantly challenge their worldview and see their own ideas as hypotheses in need of testing. What? No. You're implying that experts do not challenge their own beleives and ideas about the world.
That exactly what his study found.