Responsicle to Stephen Hsu’s Information Processing blog
- Expert Prediction: hard and soft: http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2015/09/expert-prediction-hard-and-soft.html
- Expert predictions: http://infoproc.blogspot.ae/2005/12/expert-predictions.html
- Perils of Prediction: http://infoproc.blogspot.ae/2015/02/perils-of-prediction.html
The posts by Stephen Hsu on prediction and foresight are excellent posts, and give some great shading to the phenomenon of foresight. My takeaway is that for specialized fields and defined answers, specialists are required. No surprise there. But for non-specialized fields and probabalistic answers, well-read, highly-intelligent (above a minimum) laypeople are at an advantage. I’m writing a series of blog posts on what these behavioral characteristics might be. (https://harmonyfromdiscord.wordpress.com)
The next question is why. My hypothesis is that information processing, specifically understanding WHICH information is the most relevant, is typically not very good in most people. Most people assume that more information is better, when in fact there is an art to getting just the right amount and nothing more.
With regard to academics and experts, they have incentives to amass and distribute as much knowledge as possible. No university says ‘publish the bare minimum number of papers needed to contribute meaningfully’. As a result, they build an ivory tower of publications and research, perhaps confusing what is necessary with what is available.
Another element is that most academics and experts are expected to take sides: political pundits get onto TV based on how charismatically they can call an election, not how thoughtfully they weigh candidates. Academics build a following from a central theory and may overstate the importance of it. Researchers publish findings and may spend the rest of their careers defending them.
That leaves laypeople. With no professional reputation to guard, no ego to soothe, no position to defend, they can be neutral. Add to it intelligence and consuming large amounts of unbiased and/or highly-diverse information, and they’re well-suited for general-knowledge challenges.
The takeaway for all of us? Not that being an expert is bad. But that judicious consumption of information and remaining neutral puts us at a major advantage for foresight.
What do you think Stephen?
Responsicles 