A candidate's promise as president is this: He'l hire the top 50 people in the country, educated or not, who can make the most accurate possible predictions based on large, complicated data. He will have them vote on the outcomes of his potential actions, and then follow that.
-
-
It’s reminiscent of clergy where some priest (in this case a super predictor) has access to knowledge beyond the regular person. A power that’s way too easy to corrupt. They’d need to do a lot to ensure they weren’t just being manipulative.
-
Same problem as rule by algorithm. An algorithm can be easily manipulated, or it’s result misrepresented or simply made up. I guess the super predictor is just a human algorithm.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It wasn't that a tiny minority was uncannily good, it was that skill varied but was replicable, and the study focused on the top 2% and what made them good. The distribution was still normal, not bimodal.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'd want to see the details of the study. With a set # of predictions and a large enough sample population random chance will have a few people that happen to get an uncanny number right. That doesn't necessarily mean their next predictions will be more right than anyone else.
-
I think we all really wanna see this study, ha. Obviously someone who’s an expert in a certain area will be better at predicting outcomes than a non-expert. In fact, all decision making is based on predicting future outcomes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There would be a certain percentage of people who are right due to luck, so how would you distinguish them from those right die to knowledge ?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.