Phil Tetlock and Dan Gardner on “Better Learning Through Better Betting”

Posted on 1 CommentPosted in Publications

“Ideally, a bet would use a question as big as the debate it means to settle. But that will not work, because big questions – “Will population growth outstrip resources and threaten civilization?” – do not produce easily measurable outcomes. The key, instead, is to ask many small, precise questions…. This approach, using question clusters, […]

Paul Schoemaker and Phil Tetlock in the Harvard Business Review on “Superforecasting: How to Upgrade Your Company’s Judgment”

Posted on Leave a commentPosted in Publications

“The sweet spot that companies should focus on is forecasts for which some data, logic, and analysis can be used but seasoned judgment and careful questioning also play key roles. … On the basis of our research and consulting experience, we have identified a set of practices that leaders can apply to improve their firms’ […]

Phil Tetlock and Peter Scoblic in The Washington Post on “We didn’t see Donald Trump coming. But we could have.”

Posted on Leave a commentPosted in Publications

“Trump fits into the comparison class of system-destabilizing populists — from Huey Long to Ross Perot — pretty well. Just because politics is a complex system doesn’t mean we can’t make (and improve) political predictions. Indeed, assigning numerical odds to an event, even if doing so requires some guesses, improves the quality of political forecasts […]

Phil Tetlock and Dan Gardner in the WSJ on “Predict the Future: How to Improve the Accuracy of Forecasts”

Posted on Leave a commentPosted in Publications

“A rising wind is finally blowing away the fog. And it’s about time. Clarity will be transformational. Clear forecasts can be measured for accuracy, and those measurements will increasingly reveal what improves forecasting and what doesn’t. How good could forecasting get in the future? We don’t know. But we do know that in other fields […]

Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner in The Economist on “Keeping Score”

Posted on Leave a commentPosted in Publications

“[S]uperforecasting takes practice … Others besides America’s intelligence agencies are taking note. From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, executives are starting to ask how good their forecasting really is and whether it could be better. UBS, a bank, has even launched its own internal forecasting tournament. As more people get serious about forecasting in 2016, […]

Phil Tetlock and Dan Gardner in The Telegraph on “We can learn to predict future events”

Posted on Leave a commentPosted in Publications

“Forecasting today is like the field of medicine before it became truly scientific: a discipline in which experts are unreasonably confident in the quality of their work and customers trust the experts because they are confident… Proper testing changed everything… The US intelligence community (IC) is starting to understand this, and what it stands to […]

Phil Tetlock and Peter Scoblic in the NYT on “The Power of Precise Predictions”

Posted on Leave a commentPosted in Publications

“[W]hen people make non-falsifiable predictions, they feel less accountable. After all, if a prediction can never be disproved, then it poses no reputational risk. That lack of accountability, in turn, encourages overconfidence and even more extreme predictions.  Non-falsifiable predictions thus undermine the quality of our discourse. They also impede our ability to improve policy, for […]

Barbara Mellers and Michael C. Horowitz in The Washington Post on “Does anyone make accurate geopolitical predictions?”

Posted on Leave a commentPosted in Publications

“The best forecasters also believed they could learn to make better predictions – they viewed forecasting not as an innate ability, but rather as a skill that required deliberate practice, sustained effort and constant monitoring of current affairs. Although we were initially unsure whether it was even possible to develop skill in geopolitical forecasting, our […]