4 ms·

I’m very skeptical of evidentiary patterns laid out in NYT bestseller style books.

• diehunde 6y ago
  His project[1] was part of program created by IARPA[2] so I wouldn't be that skeptical [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Advanced_Research_Projects_Activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Advanced_Research...
  • stev_stev 6y ago
    Are these what the book is based off of? Or are these just the credentials of the author? In the former case I would find that more compelling to be worth looking into than just the link to the amazon book. In any case, I wasn’t trying to specifically dismiss the book (which I have not read) but just pointing out that linking to book of that sort doesn’t give me (personally) the feeling that there is much weight behind the citation. The other links you provided do the opposite!
    • diehunde 6y ago
      Yes the book is based on that project.
      • stev_stev 6y ago
        Word
• MagnumOpus 6y ago
  You are right to be. Tetlock spun the conclusions of the project far boyond what was warranted, especially because the project was heavily flawed. I participated in the initial part of the project, figured out the winning strategy very quickly, and then dropped my participation immediately. How to be "super at forecasting" in Tetlock's eyes? Have lots of spare time in the middle of the day when professional are at work, because that is when questions get posted, and easy points can get made. (To win a prize that is less than the hourly rate of a professional.) Hmm, no wonder that the conclusion was that people with no expertise but plenty of spare time can beat the pros...
  • diehunde 6y ago
    You mean beat the people that actually do that for a living?