Expert Political Judgment

In Expert Political Judgment, Philip E. Tetlock explores the idea that political forecasting is often inaccurate. He found that experts' predictions are no more accurate than a random guess or a dart-throwing chimpanzee. This suggests that we should be cautious when relying on expert predictions in political matters.

Tetlock's research shows that an expert's cognitive style - whether they think like a 'fox' or a 'hedgehog' - can impact their forecasting accuracy. Foxes, who draw on a wide range of experiences and self-criticize, tend to make better predictions than hedgehogs, who focus on one big idea. This encourages us to adopt a more flexible, fox-like thinking style.

The book also highlights the importance of holding experts accountable for their predictions. Tetlock found that experts who were held accountable for their forecasts were more cautious and accurate in their predictions. This suggests that accountability can improve the quality of expert judgment.

Tetlock also explores the power of collective judgment. He found that the average prediction of a group of non-experts can often be more accurate than the prediction of a single expert. This suggests that we should consider a range of opinions when making decisions, rather than relying on a single expert.

In Expert Political Judgment, Tetlock emphasizes the need for continuous learning and adaptation in political forecasting. He argues that experts should regularly review and update their predictions based on new information. This encourages us to adopt a growth mindset and to continuously learn and adapt in our own lives.