Prediction, Robin Hanson, EMH, BBdM, and more. It's like Aretae-brain-candy.
Here's Cato Unbound for the month:
Outline.
Gardner & Tetlock -- We suck at prediction, and so do the experts.
Robin Hanson -- Does anyone care that we suck at prediction?
John Cochrane -- The EMH says we must suck at prediction . Economics is right again.
BBdM -- Experts do suck at prediction. I don't. Here's how.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Strikes me as a bit too much chortling.
It is ten times harder-plus to predict a particular event compared to predicting there will be some event.
RSF,
These are 4 of the best minds on the planet, who've spent the most time thinking about prediction.
The biggest disagreement that I have with Moldbug is that he is confident in his predictions of what might work. And that position is insane.
The future is complex. When predicting, even the general direction of the future, we're going to be wrong (a lot) more than right...as history demonstrates adequately. Monkeys with darts would do better at predicting than the best experts you can find....except that the range of possible outcomes is ALWAYS larger than the range of predicted outcomes, and the actual outcome usually falls outside the range of predicted outcomes as well...in some strange direction.
I share your disagreement with Moldbug. Though he has opened new avenues of thought previously outside my horizons (Royalism, True Reaction!) etc, the moment when he insisted on deductive logic beating a sincere quest for empirical support (Moldbug v Hanson debate), I laughed out loud. Also, reading about ACTUAL monarchs has blunted the shiny nature of Royalism to me - for example Henry VIII and his brutal suppression of the Pilgrimage of Grace with wanton killing of civilians, women and children, etc.
Post a Comment