P.S. I have been downvoted for saying this.
P.S. I have been downvoted for saying this.
I'll bite, what?
I know he's rich and successful, so he has deeper insights than most.
But it doesn't mean he teaches them, as far I can see he just uses them. For instance he's very good at doublespeak.
I do agree that keeping this high level and abstract (scenario planning + probabilistic estimates) isn’t necessarily doing them any favours. Their book on the topic is better, and I do appreciate their argument that it’s not about being a perfect predictor of the future, but simply better than what we have today.
What you can do, however, is control your exposure to outcomes of unpredictable events. You don't know when a pandemic will hit, but you know it is is matter of time, just like getting hacked. So prepare and design accordingly. Simple. No need for this superforecasting nonsense which doesn't even work.
Other events are not.
That’s part of the beauty of the problem. You need to be able to pick the right events to predict and ensure the event is well-defined enough to actually test. Your own examples of why this wouldn’t work are exactly what they discuss as the problem... Eventually a lot of forecasts are correct; what governments, companies, and leaders need are forecasts that are time bound, as that’s how they plan.
I recall, but cannot locate, that questions related to the outbreak of trans-species respiratory illnesses from China have been canvassed in the past. It does appear that the US intelligence community expected a pandemic to emerge: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/16/analysis-yes-people-d...
Tetlock has data piled on data.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/experts-w...
You may not owe authors whom you feel are charlatans better, but you owe this community better if you're posting to it.