We know, empirically, that @paulkrugman's opinion is useless taken at face value --practically abt everything.
But can he be useful as "reverse indicator", like traders so bad yet so nonrandom that colleagues imitate them in reverse (i,e. go short if they are bullsish, etc.) ?
-
Yet Krugman's predictions turned out to be more accurate than 25 of his colleagues in a review of pundits:https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/pundits-as-accurate-as-coin-toss-according-to-study …
Interesting but quite small sample and lack of standardization. Compare to systematic studies by Tetlock.
-
-
None of the pundits in this review, Krugman included, fared well in absolute terms. Still, his relative performance made me question Taleb’s tweet. & did Tetlock evaluate individual pundits?
-
Thanks. Will read. I’m a big fan of
@PTetlock’s work. -
It's a great book, but unfortunately for practical uses (who to read/trust!), the pundits were granted anonymity as I recall. As far as I know, there's no public ranking of pundits by prediction accuracy, nor of economics profs. So I don't trust them.
-
One exception. Caplan keeps winning bets against smart, knowledgeable people, currently at an amazing 17-0 score. Obviously, he is doing something correctly and one has to assign him high credibility on this account.http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2018/02/i_win_my_recess.html …
-
Correction: "By my count, this leaves me at 16 wins, 0 losses for my public bets," not 17 - 0 Plus, it's more of a Trumpian than "an amazing score"
-
No correction. He won a bet after that one.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.