'Experts'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
4,375
Location
Camas, WA
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26Kristof.html

Learning How to Think

Ever wonder how financial experts could lead the world over the economic cliff?

One explanation is that so-called experts turn out to be, in many situations, a stunningly poor source of expertise.


....The best example of the awe that an “expert” inspires is the “Dr. Fox effect.” It’s named for a pioneering series of psychology experiments in which an actor was paid to give a meaningless presentation to professional educators.

The actor was introduced as “Dr. Myron L. Fox” (no such real person existed) and was described as an eminent authority on the application of mathematics to human behavior. He then delivered a lecture on “mathematical game theory as applied to physician education” — except that by design it had no point and was completely devoid of substance. However, it was warmly delivered and full of jokes and interesting neologisms.

Afterward, those in attendance were given questionnaires and asked to rate “Dr. Fox.” They were mostly impressed.


.....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.


....Mr. Tetlock called experts such as these the “hedgehogs,” after a famous distinction by the late Sir Isaiah Berlin (my favorite philosopher) between hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs tend to have a focused worldview, an ideological leaning, strong convictions; foxes are more cautious, more centrist, more likely to adjust their views, more pragmatic, more prone to self-doubt, more inclined to see complexity and nuance. And it turns out that while foxes don’t give great sound-bites, they are far more likely to get things right.
 
Yes, this article is timely and shows why it is of the utmost importance to decentralize power as much as possible. Having fewer and fewer people making decisions for all others works out poorly for the all others.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Yes, this article is timely and shows why it is of the utmost importance to decentralize power as much as possible. Having fewer and fewer people making decisions for all others works out poorly for the all others.


+1!
 
"Yes, this article is timely and shows why it is of the utmost importance to decentralize power as much as possible. Having fewer and fewer people making decisions for all others works out poorly for the all others."

One of my pet foil hat ideas is 'conditional direct democracy', but I need an expert to develop a better description for it. The basic idea is that we retain the current form of government but in the house people have the option to vote on measures along with their representatives. Once a given percentage of the population has voted, say 20%, the direct vote overides the representative.

Perceived advantages are;

The people retain some control over the government, as opposed sending the elected officials off to do as they please.

People would only participate on hot topics that are important, like whether black cars should be banned.

A scorecard of how the representive votes vs the direct vote shows how well he represents.

In theory one now has the ability to negate the influence of lobbyists, but it's obvious that political ads with lots of cleavage in the media would replace lobbying in Washington so this would probably even out.

Disadvantages

some things are classified, so politically sensitive topics might end up all being classified as an end run.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Yes, this article is timely and shows why it is of the utmost importance to decentralize power as much as possible. Having fewer and fewer people making decisions for all others works out poorly for the all others.


Tempest, I have hope. Sometimes you say things I actually agree with.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Yes, this article is timely and shows why it is of the utmost importance to decentralize power as much as possible. Having fewer and fewer people making decisions for all others works out poorly for the all others.


Tempest, I have hope. Sometimes you say things I actually agree with.
wink.gif


Right back at you. That is the entire basis for my posts so I'm not sure why we don't agree more often.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"Yes, this article is timely and shows why it is of the utmost importance to decentralize power as much as possible. Having fewer and fewer people making decisions for all others works out poorly for the all others."

One of my pet foil hat ideas is 'conditional direct democracy', but I need an expert to develop a better description for it. The basic idea is that we retain the current form of government but in the house people have the option to vote on measures along with their representatives. Once a given percentage of the population has voted, say 20%, the direct vote overides the representative.

Perceived advantages are;

The people retain some control over the government, as opposed sending the elected officials off to do as they please.

People would only participate on hot topics that are important, like whether black cars should be banned.

A scorecard of how the representive votes vs the direct vote shows how well he represents.

In theory one now has the ability to negate the influence of lobbyists, but it's obvious that political ads with lots of cleavage in the media would replace lobbying in Washington so this would probably even out.

Disadvantages

some things are classified, so politically sensitive topics might end up all being classified as an end run.

Why not simply adhere to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers wrote? The Federal Government is supposed to do very limited, enumerated things. The things that have gone wrong are the extraconstitutional ones.
 
Distributed expertise, where everyone makes their own decisions over their own lives, based on a common set of rules of interaction, might work.
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Distributed expertise, where everyone makes their own decisions over their own lives, based on a common set of rules of interaction, might work.

EXTREME RADICAL!!
grin2.gif
 
"Why not simply adhere to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers wrote?"

Now you need to address a couple of centuries of rulings by the Supreme Court on what the government can and can't do, and point out why the Court has been wrong all along and you're right.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Distributed expertise, where everyone makes their own decisions over their own lives, based on a common set of rules of interaction, might work.

EXTREME RADICAL!!
grin2.gif



That is the very definition of anarchy - or hardcore libertarianism at the least, for what's it's worth; assuming the "common set of rules of interaction" is established at a community level by direct democracy.
 
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"Why not simply adhere to the Constitution that the Founding Fathers wrote?"

Now you need to address a couple of centuries of rulings by the Supreme Court on what the government can and can't do, and point out why the Court has been wrong all along and you're right.

So you are saying that everything the Supreme Court has ruled is correct and that it is never overturned by itself? How about it using foreign law to make rulings?

The Court took a sharp corner in 1937 and never looked back.
 
Last edited:
"So you are saying that everything the Supreme Court has ruled is correct and that it is never overturned by itself? How about it using foreign law to make rulings?"

You're the one applying the simplistic 'the federal government has no authority to do what it does' ideology. You adhere to the dogma regardless of the current body of rulings that we have supporting what the federal government can and cannot do. Whether the Supreme Court has overturned a previous ruling is beside the point, as your position requires you to identify in what way the current body of rulings and laws are apparently illegal.

You're a hedgehog, you seem to adhere to dogma regardless of the situation. Your dogma has you tilting at windmills when you basically state that the federal government has vastly exceeded it's authority, and all branches of the government as well as the various states, the Civil War excluded, have conspired over two centuries to make it so.
 
Quote:
Whether the Supreme Court has overturned a previous ruling is beside the point

No, it is not. It shows that the Court is fallible. How and why the Court decides what it does is important.

Do you really think that the decisions the court makes are inseparable from the people on it? Certainly not. So the people on the Court, and their motivations, matter. This is especially true when activist judge's legislate from the bench, which is beyond their Constitutional purview.

Just as the Legislative and Executive branches over reach, so too does the Judicial. Your view is dependant on the Court always making the correct, and constitutional decision. Since the court has changed it's mind on numerous decisions (particularly after 1937), we know this not to be the case.

Your article that you posted in fact shows why a small group of "experts" don't always make the right call.

The Court has also been highly politicized as can been seen as of late and in conformation hearings, but that can't be discussed here.

You can label me a "hedgehog" all you want, but it doesn't change much. You are simply trying to slap a stereotype on me.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Yes, this article is timely and shows why it is of the utmost importance to decentralize power as much as possible. Having fewer and fewer people making decisions for all others works out poorly for the all others.


Tempest, I have hope. Sometimes you say things I actually agree with.
wink.gif


Right back at you. That is the entire basis for my posts so I'm not sure why we don't agree more often.
wink.gif



On the other hand, this assumes that the intelligence (and motives) of the governed group is automatically better than that of those who are in power, aspire to power, or should be in power.

But this isn't automatically true. There are fields where specialty expertise is necessary. Look at the post about the bio-lab safety. I most certainly DON'T want the average person to make those kinds of decisions. Give me the expert please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top