Quote: "But ultimately one might expect the same basic finding as always: that forecasting events is basically impossible. Wrong. To connoisseurs of the frailti

Quote: "But ultimately one might expect the same basic finding as always: that forecasting events is basically impossible. Wrong. To connoisseurs of the frailties of futurology, the results of the Good Judgment Project are quite astonishing. Forecasting is possible, and some people – call them “superforecasters”– can predict geopolitical events with an accuracy far outstripping chance. The superforecasters have been able to sustain and even improve their performance." This is such perfect nonsense. The described program collects forecasts, forecasts that can be expected to be half right and half wrong for binary questions, throws out those that by chance were wrong, and preserves those that by chance were right. In the next round, using only subjects that were right already, the same procedure is used -- throw out the bad forecasts, preserve the good ones. Each experimental cycle eliminates 1/2 the participants. After 8 repetitions, 1/256th of the original participants remain, all with perfect records. These are the "superforcecasters" the article describes. A computer could do as well, with an equal amount of logic -- none at all. There is a financial scam called "Miracle Man" that uses the same scheme. It seems very convincing until you think about it: http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man If this were't the most absurd kind of pseudoscience, if real forecasting ability were being modeled, it could be tested using a prospective model (the gold standard for real science) instead of the useless retrospective design presently being used. The authors of this study need to learn statistics, probability, the undermining influence of confirmation bias, the importance of the null hypothesis in result analysis, and a bit of common sense wouldn't hurt.