Description |
xvi, 321 pages : illustrations ; 25 cm |
Contents |
Ch. 1. Quantifying the unquantifiable -- Ch. 2. The ego-deflating challenge of radical skepticism -- Ch. 3. Knowing the limits of one's knowledge : foxes have better calibration and discrimination scores than hedgehogs -- Ch. 4. Honoring reputational bets : foxes are better Bayesians than hedgehogs -- Ch. 5. Contemplating counterfactuals : foxes are more willing than hedgehogs to entertain self-subversive scenarios -- Ch. 6. The hedgehogs strike back -- Ch. 7. Are we open-minded enough to acknowledge the limits of open-mindedness? -- Ch. 8. Exploring the limits on objectivity and accountability -- Technical appendix / Phillip Rescober and Philip E. Tetlock |
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."--BOOK JACKET |
Notes |
Formerly CIP. Uk |
Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references and index |
Subject |
Political psychology.
|
|
Ideology.
|
LC no. |
2004061694 |
ISBN |
0691123020 alkaline paper |
|
9780691123028 cased |
|
9780691128719 paperback |
|
0691128715 paperback |
|