It would be interesting to have some twitter format where a bot could collect predictions (for tweets that provide probability and prediction) then calculates a lot of these records. It would be tough to ensure predictions are observable enough though. It'd be cool to have twitter user's records when they tweet stuff and could be a cool competition. Though making it competitive exposes the ways to game the system (the sun will rise tomorrow (100%)).
This was a great post! I appreciate most about how predictions of doom and failure against often result from disapproval as opposed to truly considered analysis. My take is this explains a lot of the anti-woke discourse. Let me say right off the bat that I to disapprove of a lot of what the woke crowd is doing but I think the demonization is extremely unhelpful. A lot of the anti-woke crowd constantly speak to the necessity of reaching out to Trump supporters and understanding why they think the things they do, instead of just labeling them "racists" and "oppressors". I completely agree! I just also think they should practice what they preach and try to reach out to the woke and persuade them of the danger of their tactics. Just labeling someone an illiberal authoritarian is going to close there eyes and ears to whatever you have to say. Yglesias does a great job of finding and occupying the middle ground and I would like to see some more of the woke skeptics adopting his approach. I quit Twitter so maybe they already are! In that case, huzzah!
One thing I have realized over the past 4 years. We are a very (small r) religious society. This is somewhat ironic coming from me, who is an active member of a mainstream religion and consider this core to my existence.
But my faith is unique in the way I approach it, and I don't expect everyone to do the same. For everything else, I like odds, I like statistics, and I want the data. Americans really want religion, whether they come from a religious tradition or not. Dogmas, bold proclamations, fire and brimstone catastrophism, purity tests, moral wedges: these are the most recognizable features of our public discourse.
I think this is bad. My religious dedication is where I go to explain the unexplainable and transcendent parts of our existence. Public policy, stock markets, and presidential approval ratings are not that. There are complex issues, but we have examples and lessons learned. We can actually apply our knowledge and arrive at better outcomes. But we have to say "no" to that part of us that wants to make everything into liturgy.
The Princes of Dunning-Krueger is how I would describe most of the predictor crowd. I think I will read Tetlock for he clearly understands this. However if you wish to pad your scorecard stick with the predictable. Mitch will try to block any Democratic initiative regardless of its wisdom or utility. I will assess that at 100 percent.
Great article concerning the need to make predictions precise and then be accountable for those predictions. I desperately wish more people followed this rule. But if you are using "Rather, good predicting means that if you predict 10 different things each with 70 percent confidence then 7 of them should happen." as a metric of how good your predictions are, you'll be way too hard on yourself. Assuming independence of outcomes for the "different things", this scenario follows a binomial distribution B(n,p) where n = 10 and p=.7, so the probability of seven "successes" would be C(10,7)(.7)^7(.3)^3 which is approx. 26.7% of the time. If you say "roughly 7 of them should happen" you're good to go, but "roughly" is doing a good bit of work here with variance, etc.
Now, I realize you know all this. My point is simply that judging the accuracy of the predictive models is also very hard work (just ask Nate Silver!), but absolutely necessary.
Lakers winning the championship has to be >50% given that they won a championship less than three months ago which means they are in-sync as a team and the rest of the league doesn't have all summer to retool and improve.
Wouldn't worry about being wrong with hard numbers on predictions to a big audience - Bill Simmons does this like once a week and seems like he's doing fine
The best way for a pundit to be less full of shit is to stop citing individual or even a handful of studies as proof of anything. This is a practice that is universally accepted across the political spectrum, but constitutes a severe abuse of statistics. You want to argue there's evidence for something? Then, first, you need to locate ALL the studies on that topic. Next you need to know some stats so that you can rank the studies in order of credibility. Finally, you need to carefully consolidate the results. If you have time after all that, you can try making some predictions, but if you're smart, you'll keep them to yourself and make a ton of money in the market.
Anyone else surprised by the rejoining JCPOA and Iran compliance at 80%? I am a bit more worried that the cat is out of the bag on that one, especially on actual compliance by Iran. Anyone have an explanation for why 80% is reasonable?
Bryan Caplan been raving about betting for years now, I think his betting record is unmatched too. Took guts to do this Matt, kuddos. I think more pundits should do this....enough of them that the general pundit readery can just ignore those who dont or have bad betting records.
what about the midterms?
It would be interesting to have some twitter format where a bot could collect predictions (for tweets that provide probability and prediction) then calculates a lot of these records. It would be tough to ensure predictions are observable enough though. It'd be cool to have twitter user's records when they tweet stuff and could be a cool competition. Though making it competitive exposes the ways to game the system (the sun will rise tomorrow (100%)).
You’re going to make over half a million dollars off this blog? Holy crap.
This was a great post! I appreciate most about how predictions of doom and failure against often result from disapproval as opposed to truly considered analysis. My take is this explains a lot of the anti-woke discourse. Let me say right off the bat that I to disapprove of a lot of what the woke crowd is doing but I think the demonization is extremely unhelpful. A lot of the anti-woke crowd constantly speak to the necessity of reaching out to Trump supporters and understanding why they think the things they do, instead of just labeling them "racists" and "oppressors". I completely agree! I just also think they should practice what they preach and try to reach out to the woke and persuade them of the danger of their tactics. Just labeling someone an illiberal authoritarian is going to close there eyes and ears to whatever you have to say. Yglesias does a great job of finding and occupying the middle ground and I would like to see some more of the woke skeptics adopting his approach. I quit Twitter so maybe they already are! In that case, huzzah!
One thing I have realized over the past 4 years. We are a very (small r) religious society. This is somewhat ironic coming from me, who is an active member of a mainstream religion and consider this core to my existence.
But my faith is unique in the way I approach it, and I don't expect everyone to do the same. For everything else, I like odds, I like statistics, and I want the data. Americans really want religion, whether they come from a religious tradition or not. Dogmas, bold proclamations, fire and brimstone catastrophism, purity tests, moral wedges: these are the most recognizable features of our public discourse.
I think this is bad. My religious dedication is where I go to explain the unexplainable and transcendent parts of our existence. Public policy, stock markets, and presidential approval ratings are not that. There are complex issues, but we have examples and lessons learned. We can actually apply our knowledge and arrive at better outcomes. But we have to say "no" to that part of us that wants to make everything into liturgy.
The Princes of Dunning-Krueger is how I would describe most of the predictor crowd. I think I will read Tetlock for he clearly understands this. However if you wish to pad your scorecard stick with the predictable. Mitch will try to block any Democratic initiative regardless of its wisdom or utility. I will assess that at 100 percent.
Great article concerning the need to make predictions precise and then be accountable for those predictions. I desperately wish more people followed this rule. But if you are using "Rather, good predicting means that if you predict 10 different things each with 70 percent confidence then 7 of them should happen." as a metric of how good your predictions are, you'll be way too hard on yourself. Assuming independence of outcomes for the "different things", this scenario follows a binomial distribution B(n,p) where n = 10 and p=.7, so the probability of seven "successes" would be C(10,7)(.7)^7(.3)^3 which is approx. 26.7% of the time. If you say "roughly 7 of them should happen" you're good to go, but "roughly" is doing a good bit of work here with variance, etc.
Now, I realize you know all this. My point is simply that judging the accuracy of the predictive models is also very hard work (just ask Nate Silver!), but absolutely necessary.
Lakers are hovering around +250, so if you think they have a 25% chance of winning you should definitely take that bet.
Lakers winning the championship has to be >50% given that they won a championship less than three months ago which means they are in-sync as a team and the rest of the league doesn't have all summer to retool and improve.
> Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock win the Georgia Senate races (60%)
This seems interesting to me. Why would you give the Dems the majority chance when
(A) They ran behind in their GOP opponents in the general.
(B) Democrats don't tend to vote in special elections
(C) The election will no longer (presumably) be about Trump
Id give the two GOP candidates a 2/3 chance of taking it
Wouldn't worry about being wrong with hard numbers on predictions to a big audience - Bill Simmons does this like once a week and seems like he's doing fine
The best way for a pundit to be less full of shit is to stop citing individual or even a handful of studies as proof of anything. This is a practice that is universally accepted across the political spectrum, but constitutes a severe abuse of statistics. You want to argue there's evidence for something? Then, first, you need to locate ALL the studies on that topic. Next you need to know some stats so that you can rank the studies in order of credibility. Finally, you need to carefully consolidate the results. If you have time after all that, you can try making some predictions, but if you're smart, you'll keep them to yourself and make a ton of money in the market.
Anyone else surprised by the rejoining JCPOA and Iran compliance at 80%? I am a bit more worried that the cat is out of the bag on that one, especially on actual compliance by Iran. Anyone have an explanation for why 80% is reasonable?
It's not, and Iran never really was compliant anyway
I think merch with your predictions and probabilities would sell very well (75%)
As Gore predicted, the ice caps had disappeared by 2015.
Bryan Caplan been raving about betting for years now, I think his betting record is unmatched too. Took guts to do this Matt, kuddos. I think more pundits should do this....enough of them that the general pundit readery can just ignore those who dont or have bad betting records.