Who expects political analysists to be 'right' as often as financial analysts are, whose stock predictions are notoriuosly bad? After all, much more relevant information is available about publicly traded companies, and the analysts predictions are about very discrete events like stock price movements.

For an exploration of this theme from a interesting prespective - that maybe the very few people who DO get these prediction right over long periods of time are merely lucky and not wise, see Malcom Gladwell's New Yorker article "Blowing Up" here - http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm

So if Tetlock is right, then he is as full-of-it as any expert, because by writing this book he is saying he is an expert expert, which means he's wrong- so if he's wrong then he's dead-on like all the experts, but then wait a second, I'm confused.

Oh wait I get it. It's common knowledge that experts are full of it, so Tetlock is just agreeing with the commonfolk, which means he can be correct. Which means his book won't tell you anything you didn't already suspect.

I hope his book has some serious figures to back up his claims or is filled with wit and delightful, well-crafted anecdotes. Otherwise it sounds hypocritical. And I'm no expert, so you can take that opinion to the bank, smartie pants.

I remember thinking along these lines pre-Iraq:

Tetlock also has an unscientific point to make, which is that “we as a society would be better off if participants in policy debates stated their beliefs in testable forms”

I also thought I was way naive to think that way. A war on Al Qaeda or Osama was testable ex ante. A war on "terror" is intrinsically not testable.

On the other hand, suppose you become attached to just one metric above all others, clinging to it even as circumstances change, going on talk shows and it is the only metric that matters ...

> "will probably warm the cockles of every political blogger out there."

Of course it will. Confirmation bias is one of the reasons people get things wrong so often. If a study agrees with my hunch, I swallow it uncritically. If it disagrees, I'll nitpick it to pieces.

How do I get a talking head job? I read the NYTimes and I've got lots of free time.

Just what I need, warm cockles!

I actually believe in experts. I apply this term to anyone who knows a great deal more than I do about a given subject.

Now, if you ask any expert about a subject different than (sometimes even slightly different than) his or her area of expertise, the value of the response you get may be no better than you could have gotten by directing your inquiry to someone picked at random from the phone book. It is also true that an expert who may have a great deal to say at some times may not at others. No talk show guest ever answered a question with the words "I have nothing useful to say about this subject right now" -- because guests are flattered to be asked, and want to be asked again. They will say almost anything rather than have to say nothing.

Finally, an expert may have excellent judgment as well as extensive knowledge about a given subject. This is not a requirement, however, and it sometimes takes multiple exposures to any particular expert to ascertain whether he or she is really a reliable source for analysis, or merely for data. Where television is concerned, once an expert is established as sufficiently entertaining his judgment and even the extent of his knowledge may not exclude him from being trotted out to give his learned opinion on any old thing.

what a blowhard.

that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard and is just another strike at the continually growing disregard people have - wrongfull so - for political science. econ is suffering this to a degree, but not as much as poli sci.

sorry, this guy is just plain stupid. im not going to address this further.

The point of political experts on TV is not to be right. It is to articulate different versions of the conventional wisdom. Yes, if you are a smart reader of the new york times, you can develop your own, better point of view. But if you are not a smart reader of the NYT, only an average cable viewer, you can choose one of the two sides on a cable talk show, and adopt it as your own, without having to develop your own more subtle take.

In other words, their function is to show us what opinions to adopt as fashionable or appropriate to our political perspectives. It is not to make us think deeply.

Not sure if the same is true with political pundits but I have been called on occasion to make comment about market matters. I can say this about the process by which an expert gets quoted. You will only be quoted if what you say fits the story the journalist wants to tell or thinks they should tell. Usually they will question more sources than they need and cherry pick the bits and pieces they want/need out of a pool of quotes. Hence as an expert you quickly learn what makes the cut. What makes the cut generally might have a bit of novelty but generally not too far from consensus. If you say something to far off you will be cut.

enlarger patch penis

prosolution pill

When there is no alternative but to look back at the entries made here, I wonder why I keep trying.

dsnpklc ztfq tedhxmsi edsqtjxk lmwqb zecn ncbvw