Philip E. Tetlock

@PTetlock

Annenberg University Professor, Wharton & School of Arts and Sciences (Psychology & Political Science)

Vrijeme pridruživanja: listopad 2011.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @PTetlock

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @PTetlock

  1. 29. sij

    I'm reasonably confident that Ian's "reasonable confidence" means roughly 60-80%, which is less vague than a lot of vague-verbiage forecasts. The clearer you make your forecasts, the easier it is to spot mistakes & become better calibrated

    Poništi
  2. 26. sij

    Let’s lock in a mutual-admiration triad: I think very highly of both Tim’s and Matthew’s work. And we are not only complimentary. We are complementary. Read us to discover why

    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    25. sij
    Poništi
  4. 23. sij

    Feuds between rival methods can be productive. But I see polling & prediction markets as each adding forecasting value. And here is some evidence of how these methods can complement each other:

    Poništi
  5. 21. sij

    This superb article illustrates critical-reasoning skills that are also at the heart of the “superforecasting” research program. We’re all aiming at the same cognitive target:

    Poništi
  6. 20. sij

    Business as usual at Davos: 1.The higher the status of forecasters, the vaguer their forecasts; 2.The more politicized the topic, the vaguer the forecasts; 3.The higher the stakes, the fewer the chances to learn from big shots' forecasting mistakes

    Poništi
  7. 16. sij

    in that case, it's also "official" that the World Economic Forum needs a remedial course in Research Methods. Correlation doesn't "mean" causality--and that is even true for claims that are pitch perfect for corporate PR purposes.

    Poništi
  8. 13. sij

    Memory lane: my first grad-school publication (1977) & basic finding holds up fairly well. Rising or falling integrative complexity of messaging predicts which crises escalate into violence. Credit: my first mentor, Peter Suedfeld.

    Poništi
  9. 8. sij

    “Superforecasters” did so well in tournaments because our scientific competitors were allergic to the cognitive elitism of tracking above-average people into superteams. Tracking had exactly the inequality-amplifying effect that egalitarians fear tracking in schools will have

    Poništi
  10. 6. sij

    Here’s a robust psychological effect that does not wilt under replication scrutiny. Kurt Lewin noticed it in the 1930s: making public commitments “freezes” attitudes in place. So saying something dumb makes you a bit dumber. It becomes harder to correct yourself. Tweeters beware.

    Poništi
  11. 2. sij

    How to save lives and money: Define forecasting accuracy as skill at achieving both a high Hit rate & low False-Positive rate. It’s trivially easy to claim you can predict every recession, war,… when no one is tracking your False-Positive rate.

    Poništi
  12. 29. pro 2019.

    We love turning points. Would China have grown faster, slower, or about the same in a world in which the Politburo liberals had prevailed? No one knows for sure but we can be pretty darn sure what current Politburo thinks

    Poništi
  13. 29. pro 2019.

    A thoughtful effort to anticipate key themes in the 2020s. Unfortunately, its first falsifiable forecast is false. People often over-predict change (e.g., Ch. 2, Expert Political Judgment). One reason: we get more credit for correctly predicting change than the boring status quo

    Poništi
  14. 28. pro 2019.

    Giant oaks from tiny acorns grow—& we still haven’t figured out how to spot which acorns will dominate our future (and we probably never will) The tweet below nails it

    Poništi
  15. 22. pro 2019.

    Very readable article on a very tricky topic: when do we have good grounds for believing something?

    Poništi
  16. 21. pro 2019.

    Vague-verbiage forecasts plant a jumble of probabilities in our minds that easily sum to < or > 1.0. So 2020 “could be” 1.Xi’s worst year (say 20%-80% range) year (say 10-40%) 3.a mix of successes & setbacks (say10-70%) Why not just give your best guess?

    Poništi
  17. 20. pro 2019.

    It looks like cost-free tomfoolery—but it's really costly. It means alpha-pundits have no incentive to become more accurate—& lower-status challengers, who got it right sooner, have no chance to be noticed

    Poništi
  18. 19. pro 2019.

    "Superforecasters" are better at tuning in signals—& tuning out noise. It’s not the millions of words had no effect. They had lots of effects, mostly tiny offsetting ones

    Poništi
  19. 16. pro 2019.

    So true—but also so much easier to agree in principle than to implement in practice. We swoon to the rhetoric of open-mindedness but our true love is the comfy familiarity of closed-mindedness

    Poništi
  20. 14. pro 2019.

    Stereotypical Brit under-statement: it's a great podcast. Tim teaches me how to teach (and i'm not just saying that because he occasionally teaches my stuff)

    Tweet je nedostupan.
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·