Media
- Tweets
- Tweets & replies
- Media, current page.
-
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
@matthewsyed@TimHarfordpic.twitter.com/dr0A1zur1i
-
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: http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18919/jdm18919.pdf …pic.twitter.com/9I7csEgBfD
-
“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 havepic.twitter.com/vGgWuhywmj
-
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.pic.twitter.com/cXoujA4VUY
-
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.pic.twitter.com/0j7gPo4Bj0
-
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) http://2.best year (say 10-40%) 3.a mix of successes & setbacks (say10-70%) Why not just give your best guess?pic.twitter.com/A3qNqKeIh3
-
"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
@ezrakleinpic.twitter.com/7ugPxaFKLJ
-
A curious thing: Behold how easy it is to win the contempt of both left & right—& virtually impossible to win the approval of both. That tells us something about the state of debate in the early 21st century (we ignore that something at our peril)
@SykesCharlie@CathyYoung63pic.twitter.com/bsotZKvYbe
-
Revisit the fine line between subtle & misleading clues: I saw a 10% chance Niall was right about another hung Parliament before the election & if I hadn’t jotted it down, I’d likely now recall it as 5%. Hindsight bias is not one of those hard-to-replicate psychological effectspic.twitter.com/QcpeAnFv72
-
Best time to appreciate fine line between subtle vs. misleading clues is BEFORE you know outcome One guarantee: in a few days, we’ll look back & say EITHER “wow, how could markets have missed something so obvious?” OR “how could Niall have talked himself into knots over nothing?”pic.twitter.com/7r467dT54o
-
Behind each of these high-body-count utopian schemes is a wildly miscalibrated forecast grounded in a fanciful view of human nature. Kant nailed it in 1784: Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”pic.twitter.com/cvCJpTn0uJ
-
I’ve learned so much from this wonderful scholar. My early work on historical counterfactuals was shaped by Donald & my thinking on cultural-economic co-evolution has been shaped by Deirdre. A beautiful mind.
@nickgillespie@DeirdreMcCloskpic.twitter.com/IWse1L9L8w
-
In each round of FOCUS Counterfactual Tournaments, we struggle with: Did things have to work out this way in this Simulated World? Like Groundhog Day, with Gould-Morris debate over how often “humans” emerge if we could rerun evolutionary history 1000s of times
@JLosos@artwusterpic.twitter.com/NfNtYQA4Zt
-
Look at race through Nate's lens: a “little nuts” to price Harris win at 1.6% when his estimate is, say, 4.8%. A factor of 3! Look at race through cloudy lens of vague-verbiage: Harris is another long-shot, anything between .0001% & 10%. Mispricing potential, a factor of 100,000pic.twitter.com/8DzBjsKs2m
-
Superforecasting made the cut into this year’s SAT, which will work to the advantage of the tiny % of high-school students who get exposed to principles of judgment under uncertainty (a core survival skill—relative, say, to trigonometry).pic.twitter.com/TmpIN9eQKi
-
Depends on the “bulletin.” Panic: NASA says asteroid will hit Earth 3/2/2020 with p (.999) Yawn: someone says asteroid might hit Earth unless we do what they want Watch-your-wallet alert: vague-verbiage forecasting coupled to special pleading from suspect sourcespic.twitter.com/a4wMPW0Rp4
-
Headlines like this make our noisy world even noisier. To keep your sanity, keep in mind Kahneman 101: 1) Best base-rate forecast is none of those moments will matter; 2) Base rates are hard to beat; 3) Nothing is as important as you think it is when you are thinking about it.pic.twitter.com/JIH0LMvJCq
-
You don’t have to agree with the outcome to admire the process. “Deliberative democracy” is like “superforecasting,” a Platonic ideal we struggle to approximate—& then fuhgeddaboudit. Easier to pretend to listen
@busterpic.twitter.com/p1JtowexPl
-
“Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise.” Bertrand Russell (capturing 100+ years ago, why we should push ourselves to translate vague-verbiage hunches into testable probabilistic propositions--the essence of "superforecasting")pic.twitter.com/MDg5On8yhM
-
This tweet has aged better than most. Falling in love is hazardous to forecasting accuracypic.twitter.com/9LXhg2vHKA
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.