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".