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".
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Education, Teaching, and Stimulus
As clearly articulated in Nick Kristof's column, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/opinion/15kristof.html, education is a critical element of long term financial development. Although some argue that the current economic stimulus should not "spend" our way to recovery, I believe that investing in human resources is the best way to consistent long term growth. Therefore, spending on excellence in teaching provides the immediate economic stimulus represented in the teachers compensation plus the long term benefits of better educated youth.
Young innovators are an important part of the solution
This Thomas Friedman column http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/opinion/15friedman.html describes eco-energy innovators who, I believe, are an important part of the economic - financial crisis.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Creative Destruction
This article in the New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/technology/26spend.html - tells the familiar story of innovation and creative destruction. Although most people have read these stories and understand them objectively, I understand creative destruction viscerally. When I went to work for AT&T in 1971, this firm had 1 million employees making it the largest and most enduring company in the world. Although a US Department of Justice Consent Decree caused the diverstiture of the Bell Operating Companies in 1984, AT&T still had 350,000 employees and was the largest company by market capitalization in 1992. What occurred during the next decade was hard to believe for those of us who had spent our adult lives being proud of our careers with "The Telephone Company". Deregulation, competition, globalization, spin-offs, acquistions, the Telecom Bubble and Collapse was the epitomy of "Creative Destruction". Even though AT&T survives as the largest telecom company, it has been sold, bought, re-structured, re-engineered, and fundementally changed. But the innovation that created its greatness - telephone, transistor, laser, and optical communications - have never regained their status as the primary drivers of the firm.
While a technology company is in rapid ascent (Google in the early 2000's, Microsoft in the 1980's and 1990's), there appears to be no stopping the profitable growth. The excitement makes these firms the darlings of the business world and the place that the most talented graduates want to work. This virtuous cycle extends until a new "more innnovative" company takes the mantle leaving the previous superstar (IBM since the mid-1990's, GE since the early 2000's) struggling for modest growth.
During the current economic and financial crises, new innovative firms will emerge somewhere in the world to shine for the next few years.
While a technology company is in rapid ascent (Google in the early 2000's, Microsoft in the 1980's and 1990's), there appears to be no stopping the profitable growth. The excitement makes these firms the darlings of the business world and the place that the most talented graduates want to work. This virtuous cycle extends until a new "more innnovative" company takes the mantle leaving the previous superstar (IBM since the mid-1990's, GE since the early 2000's) struggling for modest growth.
During the current economic and financial crises, new innovative firms will emerge somewhere in the world to shine for the next few years.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Halleluiah
Having just seen the inauguration of President Obama, all I can say is "Halleluiah". In addition to the inspiring inaugural address, the moving music, and the eloquent poems and prayers, the huge crowd of support was stimulating. To Obama's call for responsible action, count me in.
"Let's be Friends"
When family squabbles or business disagreements erupted, I half jokingly would say, "Let's be friends". Part of this declaration resulted from an innate dislike of conflict and part of this exhortation came from the practical progress from consensus. Today, I am delighted that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as President of the United States. He is a uniter and pragmatist, who in an unsophisticated moment, might say, "Let's be friends".
On this inauguration day, David Brooks' column -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/opinion/20brooks.html - states these principles more eloquently. I greatly dislike the George W. Bush administration's requirement of loyalty - "You're with 'em or agin 'em". I think that honest, thoughtful debate from many perspectives is the only way to approach a fair and realistic solution to complex problems.
In contrast, the "Think Again" column by Stanley Fish, entitled "The Last Professor" - http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/the-last-professor/?em - paints a stark choice between utilitarian and non-utilitarian higher education. As an engineer and businessman, I should naturally come down on the side of practical education to the exclusion of liberal arts, but I do not. Having attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as an undergraduate and Princeton University as a graduate student, I saw the extreme differences in these academic philosophies. With another engineer as a roomate, and another engineer as my baseball teammate, learned engineering efficiently at RPI. At Princeton, my roomate was a linguistics major and my table mates at dinner in the Graduate College studied philosophy, physics, and medieval history. During my life and career, the combination of insights from the arts and humanities were at least as impactful as those from engineering. So, I disagree with the premise of "The Last Professor". I believe that there should be a "grand debate" about higher education and the that a rich and chaotic mix of the practical and the humane forms of intellectual pursuit should continue for another 800 years. And to the proponents of these distinctly different types of higher education, "Let's be friends".
On this inauguration day, David Brooks' column -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/opinion/20brooks.html - states these principles more eloquently. I greatly dislike the George W. Bush administration's requirement of loyalty - "You're with 'em or agin 'em". I think that honest, thoughtful debate from many perspectives is the only way to approach a fair and realistic solution to complex problems.
In contrast, the "Think Again" column by Stanley Fish, entitled "The Last Professor" - http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/the-last-professor/?em - paints a stark choice between utilitarian and non-utilitarian higher education. As an engineer and businessman, I should naturally come down on the side of practical education to the exclusion of liberal arts, but I do not. Having attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as an undergraduate and Princeton University as a graduate student, I saw the extreme differences in these academic philosophies. With another engineer as a roomate, and another engineer as my baseball teammate, learned engineering efficiently at RPI. At Princeton, my roomate was a linguistics major and my table mates at dinner in the Graduate College studied philosophy, physics, and medieval history. During my life and career, the combination of insights from the arts and humanities were at least as impactful as those from engineering. So, I disagree with the premise of "The Last Professor". I believe that there should be a "grand debate" about higher education and the that a rich and chaotic mix of the practical and the humane forms of intellectual pursuit should continue for another 800 years. And to the proponents of these distinctly different types of higher education, "Let's be friends".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
