
The answer: no one! A study described in the NYT today, says that “expert” predictions, although they do have a slight impact on public opinion are no better than random guesses. The best part too is that the better name recognition with this expert, the more likely they were to be wrong! Sigh…who can we trust nowadays. Is Krugman wrong too!?
The expert on experts is Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His 2005 book, “Expert Political Judgment,” is based on two decades of tracking some 82,000 predictions by 284 experts. The experts’ forecasts were tracked both on the subjects of their specialties and on subjects that they knew little about.
The result? The predictions of experts were, on average, only a tiny bit better than random guesses — the equivalent of a chimpanzee throwing darts at a board.
“It made virtually no difference whether participants had doctorates, whether they were economists, political scientists, journalists or historians, whether they had policy experience or access to classified information, or whether they had logged many or few years of experience,” Mr. Tetlock wrote.
Indeed, the only consistent predictor was fame — and it was an inverse relationship. The more famous experts did worse than unknown ones. That had to do with a fault in the media. Talent bookers for television shows and reporters tended to call up experts who provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites. People who shouted — like, yes, Jim Cramer!

After watching Meghan McCain on the campaign trail I never thought I would agree with a lot she has to say in her 
If you are a 20something I hope you’ve gotten over thinking
On a semi-related note. If you’ve graduated to a more jargon-filled explanation then check out the blog
Recent Comments