Science Proves Pundits No Better Than Coin Flips--No Matter What They Say

[ericjhensal]

https://erichensal.substack.com/p/hedgehogs-and-foxes-cover-election

An election night is a good time to remind everyone of Philip Tetlock’s expert opinion research from 2005. Over two decades, he analyzed 82,361 predictions by 284 pundits. Even the clear subject-matter experts with PhDs were little different from an informed neighbor—or a coin flip. Tetlock did find that the more famous the pundit, the worse the predictions. It turns out news programs prefer confidence and confrontation over accuracy. Surprise.

Tetlock put forward a continuum from Hedgehog commentators to Foxes. Hedgehogs had one big idea they used to explain everything—think trickle-down economics or immigration policy. Hedgehogs make predictions to fit their single idea, using it to explain everything. If you only have a hammer, every problem is a nail. Foxes, contrariwise, borrow from many disciplines and perspectives, are intellectually flexible and skeptical, and can improvise in ways Hedgehogs cannot. Over time, Hedgehogs keep returning to their core principles, while Foxes incorporate new information, change their minds, and move on.
**SNIP**

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. This makes sense to me, my dear Eric. A lot of sense.

Many people think that if you can simplify an issue down to its core, then you're getting somewhere. Usually somewhere wrong.

It's harder to consider different angles and how people can improvise. This is a complex way to think and some folks just can't do it.

Thanks for your timely post.