Experts - no better than mice

Nick Kristof's column -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26Kristof.html- makes the argument that "experts" and "pundits" are only slightly better at predicting the future than random guesses. He discusses that "experts" are believed more often by the public than partisans. The story in Kristof's column about "hedgehogs" and "foxes" is especially insightful.

"Indeed, the only consistent predictor was fame — and it was an inverse relationship. The more famous experts did worse than unknown ones. That had to do with a fault in the media. Talent bookers for television shows and reporters tended to call up experts who provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites. People who shouted — like, yes, Jim Cramer!
Mr. Tetlock called experts such as these the “hedgehogs,” after a famous distinction by the late Sir Isaiah Berlin (my favorite philosopher) between hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs tend to have a focused worldview, an ideological leaning, strong convictions; foxes are more cautious, more centrist, more likely to adjust their views, more pragmatic, more prone to self-doubt, more inclined to see complexity and nuance. And it turns out that while foxes don’t give great sound-bites, they are far more likely to get things right."

I hate "screamers".

So whether you are a professor, a family advisor, an "expert", or a true friend, be a humble "fox".

Prejudice

Nick Kristof's column today is "right on" (using 1960's lingo to show that I most like views that agree with my prejudice) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html?_r=1. It makes the point that each of us, whether liberal or conservative, seeks inputs that confirm our own pre-existing points of view.

I am socially liberal and fiscally middle of the road. I "pride" myself in reading opinion pieces from a variety of sources like the "Wall Street Journal" and the "New York Times" and blogs from Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman. But, do I really? I have a wide spectrum of political input set up as RSS feeds. However, I read the ones that I agree with first and get to the ones I disagree with "if I have time", which is less frequent. I quote the ones I agree in this blog and in debates much more often than I quote the ones that challenge my current thinking. So, my "pride" should be discounted like "mortgage backed securities".

I have just returned from a week of skiing in Colorado where a bunch of "old-guys" ski all day and talk all night. This "8th Annual March Ski Madness" has been one of the most stimulating weeks of the year for me. The mix of personalities and political perspectives have instigated vigorous debate. An objective review of the eight years of dialogue, however, would indicate tolerance and intolerance. One disappointment is the fact that conservatives have stood up for their views, felt unwelcome, and returned less often in subsequent years than the liberals among us. I should recruit more diversity of opinion for this annual event.

I will re-dedicate myself to immerse myself in diverse political, social, and economic perspectives.