Superforecasting
Everyone would benefit from seeing further into the future, whether buying stocks, crafting policy, launching a new product, or simply planning the week’s meals. Unfortunately, people tend to be terrible forecasters. As Wharton professor Philip Tetlock showed in a landmark 2005 study, even experts’ predictions are only slightly better than chance. However, an important and underreported conclusion of that study was that some experts do have real foresight, and Tetlock has spent the past decade trying to figure out why. What makes some people so good? And can this talent be taught? In Superforecasting, Tetlock and coauthor Dan Gardner offer a masterwork on prediction, drawing on decades of research and the results of a massive, government-funded forecasting tournament. The Good Judgment Project involves tens of thousands of ordinary people—including a Brooklyn filmmaker, a retired pipe installer, and a former ballroom dancer—who set out to forecast global events. Some of the volunteers have turned out to be astonishingly good. They’ve beaten other benchmarks, competitors, and prediction markets. They’ve even beaten the collective judgment of intelligence analysts with access to classified information. They are "superforecasters." In this groundbreaking and accessible book, Tetlock and Gardner show us how we can learn from this elite group.
Stats for nerds
44recommend
101mentions
71people
2015–2026years
54% recommend45% neutral1% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- You speak about laundering ignorance into precise-seeming mathematics as if it was a bad thing.
But that's the entire idea of Bayesian reasoning. Which has proven to be surprisingly effective in a wide range of domains.
I'm all for quantifying my ignorance, and using it as an outside view to help guide my expectations. Read the book Superforecasting to understand how effective forecasters use an outside view to adjust their inside view, to allow them to forecast things more precisely.
- It's an empirical fact that smart people can predict things by doing research. See Tetlock's book Superforecasting.
I've been doing it profitably myself for almost 10 years now. I have zero special inside knowledge, and no access to any other non-public information.
> Will the US strike Iran by X date
Last year I did think the market for a strike on Iran was significantly underpriced given the information and conditions within a specific frame of time.
I don't think every smart person can just pop into prediction markets and print money, but I know many smart people who are long-term winners. I also don't try to knock people as degenerate when they have genuine talent.
- I found the same when I was taking intro to stats - I did get a much better intuition for what stuff meant after reading 'superforecasting' by tetlock and gardner - I find I'm recommending that book a lot come to think of it.
- Experts are often worse than laymen in predicting macro developments because they are narrowed by their focus and biased towards it. Tetlock's Superforecasting is a great book on this.
Some condensed source I found on the topic:
https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/News/The-more-famous-an-expert-...
- There are superforecasters, but they're not the pundits you see on TV. Superforecasting is a great book, see if your library has it.
From: https://ig.ft.com/sites/business-book-award/books/2015/longl...
In a landmark 20 year study, Professor Philip Tetlock showed that even the average expert was only slightly better at predicting the future than random guesswork. Tetlock’s latest project, an unprecedented government funded forecasting tournament involving over a million individual predictions has since shown that there are, however, some people with real demonstrable foresight.
- Pure math is probably not worth the squeeze. I think more important to everyday life is systems thinking and a bit of probability/stats, mainly bayesian updates. "Superforecasting" was an eye-opening book to me, I could see how most people would benefit massively by it.
Similar to systems thinking, just the ability to play out scenarios in your head given a set of rules is a very useful skill, one which programmers tend to either be good at because of genetics or because we do it every day (i.e. simulate code in our head). You can tell when someone lacks this ability when discussing something like evolutionary psychology. Someone with a systems thinking mindset and an ability to simulate evolution tend to understand it as obvious how evolutionary pressures tend to, and really must, create certain behavior patterns (on average), while people without this skill tend to think humans are a blank slate because it's easier to think about, and also is congruent with modern sensibilities.
This skill applies in everyday life, especially when you need to understand economics (even basic things like supply and demand seems elusive to many), politics etc.
