Kirjahaku

Since its original publication, Expert Political Judgment by New York Times bestselling author Philip Tetlock has established itself as a contemporary classic in the literature on evaluating expert opinion. Tetlock first discusses arguments about whether the world is too complex for people to find the tools to understand political phenomena, let alone predict the future. He evaluates predictions from experts in different fields, comparing them to predictions by well-informed laity or those based on simple extrapolation from current trends. He goes on to analyze which styles of thinking are more successful in forecasting. Classifying thinking styles using Isaiah Berlin's prototypes of the fox and the hedgehog, Tetlock contends that the fox--the thinker who knows many little things, draws from an eclectic array of traditions, and is better able to improvise in response to changing events--is more successful in predicting the future than the hedgehog, who knows one big thing, toils devotedly within one tradition, and imposes formulaic solutions on ill-defined problems. He notes a perversely inverse relationship between the best scientific indicators of good judgement and the qualities that the media most prizes in pundits--the single-minded determination required to prevail in ideological combat. Clearly written and impeccably researched, the book fills a huge void in the literature on evaluating expert opinion. It will appeal across many academic disciplines as well as to corporations seeking to develop standards for judging expert decision-making. Now with a new preface in which Tetlock discusses the latest research in the field, the book explores what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events and looks at why experts are often wrong in their forecasts.

Since its original publication, Expert Political Judgment by New York Times bestselling author Philip Tetlock has established itself as a contemporary classic in the literature on evaluating expert opinion. Tetlock first discusses arguments about whether the world is too complex for people to find the tools to understand political phenomena, let alone predict the future. He evaluates predictions from experts in different fields, comparing them to predictions by well-informed laity or those based on simple extrapolation from current trends. He goes on to analyze which styles of thinking are more successful in forecasting. Classifying thinking styles using Isaiah Berlin's prototypes of the fox and the hedgehog, Tetlock contends that the fox--the thinker who knows many little things, draws from an eclectic array of traditions, and is better able to improvise in response to changing events--is more successful in predicting the future than the hedgehog, who knows one big thing, toils devotedly within one tradition, and imposes formulaic solutions on ill-defined problems. He notes a perversely inverse relationship between the best scientific indicators of good judgement and the qualities that the media most prizes in pundits--the single-minded determination required to prevail in ideological combat. Clearly written and impeccably researched, the book fills a huge void in the literature on evaluating expert opinion. It will appeal across many academic disciplines as well as to corporations seeking to develop standards for judging expert decision-making. Now with a new preface in which Tetlock discusses the latest research in the field, the book explores what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events and looks at why experts are often wrong in their forecasts.

Jokainen hyötyisi tulevaisuuteen katsomisesta, jos osaisimme tehdä sen oikein. Osaisimme ostaa osakkeita, juonia politiikassa, lanseerata uusia tuotteita tai yksinkertaisesti suunnitella arjen elämää.Valitettavasti me ihmiset olemme todella huonoja ennustajia.Vuonna 2005 professori Philip E. Tetlock todisti tämän laajan kokeensa tuloksella: jopa asiantuntijoiden ennustukset omalla alallaan ovat vain hieman sattumanvaraista arvausta parempia.Tutkimuksen osatulos oli kuitenkin, että jotkut asiantuntijat ovat johdonmukaisesti vertaisiaan parempia. Miksi? Ja voiko taidon oppia?Superennustajat on yhteenveto Tetlockin uudesta tutkimuksesta, Hyvä arvio -projektista, joka selvittää näitä kysymyksiä. Kymmenettuhannet tavalliset vapaaehtoiset ryhtyivät ennustamaan asiantuntemuksensa ulkopuolella olevia maailman tapahtumia ja kävi ilmi, että osa heistä suoriutui hämmästyttävän hyvin. He ylittivät asetetut tavoitteet ja voittivat kilpailijansa ja ennustusmarkkinat. He olivat jopa parempia kuin tiedustelutiedon analyytikoiden kollektiiviset tulokset.Superennustajat kertoo, miten nämä ihmiset toimivat. Ennustaminen ei edellytä valtavia tietokoneita tai salaperäisiä menetelmiä. Superennustajat keräävät aineistoaan eri lähteistä, heidän ajattelunsa perustuu todennäköisyyksiin, he työskentelevät ryhmissä, pitävät kirjaa tuloksistaan ja ennen kaikkea ovat valmiit myöntämään virheensä ja muuttamaan mielipiteitään.