000			04314nam a22005535i 4500
001			210060
003			IT-RoAPU
005			20221214233828.0
006			m|||||o||d||||||||
007			cr || ||||||||
008			210830t20172017nju fo d z eng d
019			_a(OCoLC)1004868118
020			_a9780691175973 _qprint
020			_a9781400888818 _qPDF
024	7		_a10.1515/9781400888818 _2doi
035			_a(DE-B1597)9781400888818
035			_a(DE-B1597)487631
035			_a(OCoLC)993581675
040			_aDE-B1597 _beng _cDE-B1597 _erda
072		7	_aPOL000000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a320/.01/9
084			_aonline - DeGruyter
100	1		_aTetlock, Philip E. _eautore
245	1	0	_aExpert Political Judgment : _bHow Good Is It? How Can We Know? - New Edition / _cPhilip E. Tetlock.
250			_aNew
264		1	_aPrinceton, NJ : _bPrinceton University Press, _c[2017]
264		4	_c©2017
300			_a1 online resource (368 p.)
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
505	0	0	_tFrontmatter -- _tContents -- _tAcknowledgments -- _tPreface -- _tPreface to the 2017 Edition -- _tCHAPTER 1. Quantifying the Unquantifiable -- _tCHAPTER 2. The Ego-deflating Challenge of Radical Skepticism -- _tCHAPTER 3. Knowing the Limits of One's Knowledge -- _tCHAPTER 4. Honoring Reputational Bets -- _tCHAPTER 5. Contemplating Counterfactuals -- _tCHAPTER 6. The Hedgehogs Strike Back -- _tCHAPTER 7. Are We Open-minded Enough to Acknowledge the Limits of Open-mindedness? -- _tCHAPTER 8. Exploring the Limits on Objectivity and Accountability -- _tMethodological Appendix -- _tTechnical Appendix -- _tIndex
506	0		_arestricted access _uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec _fonline access with authorization _2star
520			_aSince its original publication, Expert Political Judgment by New York Times bestselling author Philip Tetlock has established itself as a contemporary classic in the literature on evaluating expert opinion.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. Now with a new preface in which Tetlock discusses the latest research in the field, the book explores what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events and looks at why experts are often wrong in their forecasts.
530			_aIssued also in print.
538			_aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546			_aIn English.
588	0		_aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 30. Aug 2021)
650		0	_aIdeology.
650		0	_aPolitical psychology.
650		7	_aPOLITICAL SCIENCE / General. _2bisacsh
700	1		_aTetlock, Philip E. _eautore
850			_aIT-RoAPU
856	4	0	_uhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9781400888818
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9781400888818
856	4	2	_3Cover _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/cover/covers/9781400888818.jpg
942			_cEB
999			_c210060 _d210060