专家政治判断
Expert Political Judgment
Philip E. Tetlock · 初版 2004 年
4人推荐
16位读者提及
21次提及
为什么值得读
- 详尽实证检验并指出大多数专家预测皆不可靠
- 提出刺猬与狐狸理论，剖析更优预测者的特质
- 风格严谨又妙趣横生，助人客观评估概率预测
“围绕伊拉克战争的情报失误戏剧性地彰显了制定专家意见评估标准的必要性。本书填补了这一空白。在此，Philip E. Tetlock 探讨了在预测未来事件时何谓良好判断力，并分析了为何专家在预测中常常出错。”“Tetlock 首先讨论了关于世界是否过于复杂以至于人们无法找到理解政治现象的工具，更不用说预测未来的争论。他评估了不同领域专家的预测，并将其与由
Hacker News 上怎么说
正在加载完整评论……
具体到预测能力方面，如果你还没了解过的话，可能会有兴趣读读菲利普·泰特洛克（Philip E. Tetlock）的《专家的政治判断：究竟有多好？我们如何得知？》（Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?）。他试图用经验主义方法去测试专家的政治判断力，主要结论是基本上所有人……
Specifically in terms of being predictive you might be interested in reading Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? by Philip E. Tetlock if you are not familiar with it already. He tried to empirically test experts political judgement and the main conclusion was pretty much everybody…
你应该去读读泰特洛克在《专家的政治判断》（Expert Political Judgment）里写的关于狐狸与刺猬的另一项研究。它提出了一套理论，解释为什么有些人的预测能力确实比别人更强。这不是靠运气或天赋，更多是因为这些人能够综合考量多个不同的数据点、顾及历史……
You should read Tetlock's other work about foxes and hedgehogs in Expert Political Judgment. It presents a theory of why some people are indeed better forecasters than others. It's not lucky or genius, it's more about people who are able to consider several different data points, consider historical…
……其他人。如果你对此非常感兴趣，他搞了一个叫“良判计划”（Good Judgment Project）的网站，你可以在上面跟其他用户长期比拼自己的预测能力。http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp... https://www.gjopen.com/
…others. If you are really interested in this he has as website called "good judgement project" where you can test your ability to predict against other people on the site over time. http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp... https://www.gjopen.com/
……自信满满的预言家：我是对的 / 我肯定是对的，只不过时机没算准[0]。但要做出更具可验证性的预测，我就得开始给特定日期分配概率了。[0] 泰特洛克那本《专家的政治判断：究竟有多好？我们如何得知？》依然是一部针对主观偏见预测的极其精彩且有趣的实证研究：https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d...
…confident prognosticator: I am right / I will be right, except about the timing[0]. But to make more verifiable predictions I would need to start assigning probabilities to particular dates. [0] Tetlock's Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? is still a brilliant and amusing empirical study of opinionated forecasting: https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d...
……https://rationaldino.substack.com/ 不过这需要花点时间。有一个非常简单的试金石可以判断哪些预测靠得住、哪些容易翻车。那就是：他们有多确定？https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d... 报道了一项针对专家的长期研究。基本上可以分为两类：1. 刺猬型。坚信某一套包罗万象的大一统理论。2. 狐狸型。能够博采众长……
…https://rationaldino.substack.com/ but which will take a while. There is a very simple litmus test to tell which are likely to fade, versus which aren't. How certain are they? https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d... reports on a long-term study about pundits. Basically they can be divided into two groups: 1. Hedgehogs. Have one overarching theory that they are certain of. 2. Foxes. Can pick and choose…
……一份记录完备的定量推理历史，加上证明其历史准确性的数据，就是证明一个来源值得信赖的最佳证据。我的这套启发式方法基于 https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d... 中的研究。把这个启发式应用到“听起来言之凿凿”上，得出的结论就是：这只是一个需要进一步研究的引子，而这个研究最后还不一定会做。
…documented history of quantitative reasoning, along with data showing historical accuracy, is the best evidence of a trustworthy source. I base those heuristics on the research in https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d.... Applying this heuristic to "sounds certain" results in a conclusion, that is an invitation to further research that may or may not happen.