The pundits try to weasel out of them. As Tetlock writes; “The trick is to attach so many qualifiers to your vague predictions that you will be well positioned

The pundits try to weasel out of them. As Tetlock writes; “The trick is to attach so many qualifiers to your vague predictions that you will be well positioned to explain pretty much whatever happens. " Yes the equivocation can be absurd. One example that has stuck with me due in part to it's brazen absurdity, was an expert something or other on some pbs news show saying "I'm going to predict that [so and so] might happen." I could only think, wow what a bold prognostication on your part. --- As to the article in whole, I agree. I've always found the feedback aspect of deliberate practice to be a key part of the process.