David Epstein, The Atlantic, has an excellent piece recapping the famous Ehrlich/Simon bet and discussing Phillip Tetlock’s research, here..
”Even faced with their results, many experts never admitted systematic flaws in their judgment. When they missed wildly, it was a near miss; if just one little thing had gone differently, they would have nailed it. “There is often a curiously inverse relationship,” Tetlock concluded, “between how well forecasters thought they were doing and how well they did.””
Tetlock coauthored Superforecasting, The Art and Science of Prediction…
Leave a Reply