In Philip Tetlock’s work, simple trend projection of geopolitical/economic events did better than pundit predictions. Better trend analysis, e.g. taking into account the rate at which other trends have sustained themselves, physical limits, etc, could do better, but I would be measured in critique of the simple version.
I agree, but I think most pundits just take one thing, decide it’s the most important, and project it. A lot of pundits probably do this explicitly because they have to push a certain political narrative while others fall into the “narrative forecasting” trap that Qiaochu_Yuan describes in this excellent comment.
I honestly doubt most pundits even try to apply basic statistical methods to their assessments. Nate Silver strikes me as the exception, not the rule, and it’s important to remember that he only acquired his current credibility after doing very well in predicting results for two US Presidential elections in a row.
In Philip Tetlock’s work, simple trend projection of geopolitical/economic events did better than pundit predictions. Better trend analysis, e.g. taking into account the rate at which other trends have sustained themselves, physical limits, etc, could do better, but I would be measured in critique of the simple version.
I agree, but I think most pundits just take one thing, decide it’s the most important, and project it. A lot of pundits probably do this explicitly because they have to push a certain political narrative while others fall into the “narrative forecasting” trap that Qiaochu_Yuan describes in this excellent comment.
Also because it’s computationally difficult to figure out how multiple trends will interact.
I honestly doubt most pundits even try to apply basic statistical methods to their assessments. Nate Silver strikes me as the exception, not the rule, and it’s important to remember that he only acquired his current credibility after doing very well in predicting results for two US Presidential elections in a row.