I picked up a copy of The Black Swan for AU$10 yesterday and rereading it, I came across a reference to the work of James Shanteau, in particular, this paper from 1992.
It's interesting because it suggests that the performance and reliability of experts is dependent on their field - we can't expect stock brokers to be as accurate as weather forecasters. It also means that we should be suspicious of those who claim expertise in "dynamic areas" - your mileage may vary...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Most of the reading that I have done shows that forecasts by experts are no more accurate than those by non-experts. It does not matter about the field. What works is structured analogies and simulated interaction. See Scott Armstrong's work for more information.
Luke - Thanks for the Scott Armstrong tip. When you say "forecasts by experts are no more accurate than those by non-experts", it does depend on what is being "forecast". A chemist should be able to predict the behaviour of well-understood chemical compounds in a lab more accurately than a non-chemist. An astronomer can forecast where a comet will be years in advance. But I suspect that is not the kind of "forecast" you are talking about.
Economic and political experts do have lousy track records (c.f. the work of Philip Tetlock).
From memory Matt (I saw a presentation by Scott at an organisational foresight conference in Scotland 4 years ago), it refers to experts in the softer sciences rather than those that have more proven tests. Things like economics (how many experts warned of the impending credit crisis), society, politics (a bit easier) and culture. Best to remember that trends are only trends until they are disrupted - which happens quite frequently!
Post a Comment