4 ms·
I think the only thing to conclude from the article is that normal people can beat CIA analysts. This is similar to the story about monkey stock picking. (near
by AJ007 13y ago
I think the only thing to conclude from the article is that normal people can beat CIA analysts. This is similar to the story about monkey stock picking. (near useless FT story url http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/abd15744-9793-11e2-b7ef-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/abd15744-9793-11e2-b7ef-00144...)
- nzp 13y agoHm, I wouldn't say normal people, but subpopulations of normal people (i.e. not individuals but groups). It's an important distinction in this case. But it depends on how CIA analysts' estimates are aggregated if at all. In fact it would be extremely interesting if CIA normally got predictions by averaging multiple analysts' estimates. That would mean normal people with open source intel are beating trained analysts with confidential intel! In that case, we could say normal people beat CIA analysts. But to me this article implies analysts' estimates are not taken as averages. Any CIA analysts here to set the record straight? :)
- im3w1l 13y agoAnd further, more people in the average means less variance. Do they compare sub-populations of equal size?