The NYT article provides the most detail I’ve seen on how Bueno de Mesquita’s model actually works. Tetlock is wary of him for being a hedgehog, and concludes Bueno de Mesquita is better than other experts, but that’s not saying much.
From an interview, here is Bueno de Mesquita’s own recommendations on where to learn more:
“Interested readers should read my 2002 book Predicting Politics (Ohio State University Press) or my 1994 book (co-edited with Frans Stokman) European Community Decision Making (Yale University Press) or my 1997 article in International Interactions for explanations of how the model works. They should also read Stanley Feder’s 2002 article in the Annual Review of Political Science for an evaluation of what the model can and cannot do based on the experiences of someone who used it more than a thousand times at the CIA.”
Good links. The NYT article has criticism, as well as information about failed predictions:
While Bueno de Mesquita has published many predictions in academic journals, the vast majority of his forecasts have been done in secret for corporate or government clients, where no independent academics can verify them. “We have no idea if he’s right 9 times out of 10, or 9 times out of a hundred, or 9 times out of a thousand,” Walt says. Walt also isn’t impressed by Stanley Feder’s C.I.A. study showing Bueno de Mesquita’s 90 percent hit rate. “It’s one midlevel C.I.A. bureaucrat saying, ‘This was a useful tool,’ ” Walt says. “It’s not like he’s got Brent Scowcroft saying, ‘Back in the Bush administration, we didn’t make a decision without consulting Bueno de Mesquita.’ ” Other academics point out that rational-actor theory has come under increasing criticism in recent years, as more evidence accumulates that people make many decisions irrationally.
And it’s true that there have been cases when Bueno de Mesquita’s model has gone awry. In his 1996 book, “Red Flag Over Hong Kong,” he predicted that the press in Hong Kong “will become largely a tool of the state” — a highly debatable claim today. (In 2006, Reporters Without Borders noted concerns about self-censorship but said that “journalists remain free in Hong Kong.”) In early 1993, a corporate client asked him to forecast whether the Clinton administration’s health care plan would pass, and he said it would.
Your link to the NYT was hijacked, it now goes to a “anti-viruses” site—I closed the tab as quickly as I could and didn’t catch much information about the site. Rather, the NYT site was apparently hijacked—I got redirected.
I’m running Firefox 3.5; but the anti-viruses redirect is gone now, I just got through and read the article. I deleted my original comment, no sense in cluttering the thread unnecessarily, so I don’t know if this is going to show up or not. anonym’s responding comment disappeared from my browser. EDIT: Now it has reappeared along with Kevin’s and this new comment (I hate software).
Here are two more profiles of Bueno de Mesquita:
Clive Thompson in the NYT
Philip Tetlock in The National Interest
The NYT article provides the most detail I’ve seen on how Bueno de Mesquita’s model actually works. Tetlock is wary of him for being a hedgehog, and concludes Bueno de Mesquita is better than other experts, but that’s not saying much.
From an interview, here is Bueno de Mesquita’s own recommendations on where to learn more: “Interested readers should read my 2002 book Predicting Politics (Ohio State University Press) or my 1994 book (co-edited with Frans Stokman) European Community Decision Making (Yale University Press) or my 1997 article in International Interactions for explanations of how the model works. They should also read Stanley Feder’s 2002 article in the Annual Review of Political Science for an evaluation of what the model can and cannot do based on the experiences of someone who used it more than a thousand times at the CIA.”
Good links. The NYT article has criticism, as well as information about failed predictions:
Your link to the NYT was hijacked, it now goes to a “anti-viruses” site—I closed the tab as quickly as I could and didn’t catch much information about the site. Rather, the NYT site was apparently hijacked—I got redirected.
Works for me, right after you added this comment. The URL is fine. Perhaps you have been hacked or infected with some malware that is responsible for redirecting your browser. The URL is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html?pagewanted=all, which is definitely a New York Times URL.
I actually got the virus redirect thing on a different NY Times link earlier today and I’m running Firefox 3 on Ubuntu.
I’m running Firefox 3.5; but the anti-viruses redirect is gone now, I just got through and read the article. I deleted my original comment, no sense in cluttering the thread unnecessarily, so I don’t know if this is going to show up or not. anonym’s responding comment disappeared from my browser. EDIT: Now it has reappeared along with Kevin’s and this new comment (I hate software).