Sublime

An inspiration engine for ideas

AllPeopleCollectionsArticlesAudioBooksFilesHighlightsImagesLinksNotesTextTweetsVideos

aggregating the judgments of an equal number of people who know lots about lots of different things is most effective because the collective pool of information becomes much bigger.

Philip E. Tetlock, Dan Gardner • Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

Foxes beat hedgehogs on both calibration and resolution.

Philip E. Tetlock, Dan Gardner • Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

the more famous an expert was, the less accurate he was.

Philip E. Tetlock, Dan Gardner • Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

The University of Pennsylvania psychologist and political scientist Philip E. Tetlock has found that experts are generally terrible at making predictions about future events. In fact, he’s found that the more prominent the expert, the less accurate their predictions. Tetlock says this is because experts’ views are too locked in—they use their knowl... See more

David Brooks • How the Ivy League Broke America

My colleague Phil Tetlock finds that forecasting skill is less a matter of what we know than of how we think.

Adam Grant • Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know

“Where wisdom once was, quantification will now be.

Philip E. Tetlock, Dan Gardner • Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

Here, the right test of skill would be whether a forecaster can do better than mindlessly predicting no change.

Philip E. Tetlock, Dan Gardner • Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

In Tetlock’s analysis, the foxes—attuned to a wide range of potential sources, willing to admit uncertainty, not devoted to an overarching theory—turned out to be significantly better at predicting future events than the more single-minded experts. The foxes were full spectrum; the hedgehogs were narrowband.

Steven Johnson • Farsighted: How We Make the Decisions That Matter the Most

And some forecasts are meant to comfort