Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?

Philip E. Tetlock

ISBN 10: 0691128715 / ISBN 13: 9780691128719

Editore: Princeton University Press, USA, 2006

Riguardo questo articolo

Paperback 2006 reprint. 23.5x15.5cm. xvi+321 pages with index. No inscriptions. SPINE IS FADED & LIGHTLY CREASED. Flat covers. Clean & tight. Flat pages. Dispatched ROYAL MAIL FIRST CLASS with TRACKING next working day or sooner securely boxed in cardboard. ref fr1.

Codice articolo 046695

Dati bibliografici

• Titolo: Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?
• Editore: Princeton University Press, USA
• Data di pubblicazione: 2006
• Lingua: Inglese
• ISBN 10: 0691128715
• ISBN 13: 9780691128719
• Rilegatura: Soft cover
• Stampa: 8th printing
• Condizione: Very Good

Descrizione articolo

Riassunto

The intelligence failures surrounding the invasion of Iraq dramatically illustrate the necessity of developing standards for evaluating expert opinion. This book fills that need. Here, Philip E. Tetlock explores what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events, and looks at why experts are often wrong in their forecasts.

Tetlock first discusses arguments about whether the world is too complex for people to find the tools to understand political phenomena, let alone predict the future. He evaluates predictions from experts in different fields, comparing them to predictions by well-informed laity or those based on simple extrapolation from current trends. He goes on to analyze which styles of thinking are more successful in forecasting. Classifying thinking styles using Isaiah Berlin's prototypes of the fox and the hedgehog, Tetlock contends that the fox--the thinker who knows many little things, draws from an eclectic array of traditions, and is better able to improvise in response to changing events--is more successful in predicting the future than the hedgehog, who knows one big thing, toils devotedly within one tradition, and imposes formulaic solutions on ill-defined problems. He notes a perversely inverse relationship between the best scientific indicators of good judgement and the qualities that the media most prizes in pundits--the single-minded determination required to prevail in ideological combat.

Clearly written and impeccably researched, the book fills a huge void in the literature on evaluating expert opinion. It will appeal across many academic disciplines as well as to corporations seeking to develop standards for judging expert decision-making.

Informazioni sull?autore

Philip E. Tetlock is Mitchell Professor of Leadership at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics (Princeton).