Library Catalog
Amazon cover image
Image from Amazon.com

Expert Political Judgment : How Good Is It? How Can We Know? / Philip E. Tetlock.

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextPublisher: Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, [2009]Copyright date: ©2006Edition: Course BookDescription: 1 online resource (344 p.) : 39 line illus. 7 tablesContent type:
Media type:
Carrier type:
ISBN:
  • 9780691128719
  • 9781400830312
Subject(s): Other classification:
  • online - DeGruyter
Online resources: Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also in print.
Contents:
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Preface -- Chapter 1. Quantifying the Unquantifiable -- Chapter 2. The Ego-deflating Challenge of Radical Skepticism -- Chapter 3. Knowing the Limits of One's Knowledge -- Chapter 4. Honoring Reputational Bets -- Chapter 5. Contemplating Counterfactuals -- Chapter 6. The Hedgehogs Strike Back -- Chapter 7. Are We Open-minded Enough to Acknowledge the Limits of Open-mindedness? -- Chapter 8. Exploring the Limits on Objectivity and Accountability -- Methodological Appendix -- Technical Appendix -- Index
Summary: 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.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number URL Status Notes Barcode
eBook eBook Biblioteca "Angelicum" Pont. Univ. S.Tommaso d'Aquino Nuvola online online - DeGruyter (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Online access Not for loan (Accesso limitato) Accesso per gli utenti autorizzati / Access for authorized users (dgr)9781400830312

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Preface -- Chapter 1. Quantifying the Unquantifiable -- Chapter 2. The Ego-deflating Challenge of Radical Skepticism -- Chapter 3. Knowing the Limits of One's Knowledge -- Chapter 4. Honoring Reputational Bets -- Chapter 5. Contemplating Counterfactuals -- Chapter 6. The Hedgehogs Strike Back -- Chapter 7. Are We Open-minded Enough to Acknowledge the Limits of Open-mindedness? -- Chapter 8. Exploring the Limits on Objectivity and Accountability -- Methodological Appendix -- Technical Appendix -- Index

restricted access online access with authorization star

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec

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.

Issued also in print.

Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.

In English.

Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 30. Aug 2021)