A01=Philip E. Tetlock
Ambiguity
Amos Tversky
Author_Philip E. Tetlock
Base rate
Bayesian
Bayesian probability
Category=JMH
Category=JP
Certainty
Cognitive bias
Cognitive style
Competition
Contradiction
Controversy
Counterfactual history
Credibility
Decision-making
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
Estimation
Explanation
Extrapolation
Extremism
Falsity
Forecasting
Foreign policy
Handbook
Heuristic
Hindsight bias
Hypothesis
Ideology
Inference
International relations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Likelihood function
Marketplace of ideas
Mikhail Gorbachev
National security
North Korea
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear warfare
Participant
Pessimism
Political psychology
Political science
Politics
Positivism
Prediction
Prejudice
Principle
Probability
Probability theory
Psychologist
Psychology
Pundit
Rationality
Reason
Relativism
Respondent
Result
Rhetoric
School of thought
Scientist
Scoring rule
Social science
Soviet Union
Stalinism
Statistical hypothesis testing
Theory
Thought
Trade-off
Uncertainty
Unemployment
Virtuous circle and vicious circle
Weighting
Product details
- ISBN 9780691178288
- Weight: 652g
- Dimensions: 152 x 235mm
- Publication Date: 29 Aug 2017
- Publisher: Princeton University Press
- Publication City/Country: US
- Product Form: Hardback
Secure
checkout
Fast Shipping
Easy returns
Since 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.
Philip E. Tetlock is Mitchell Professor of Leadership at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics (Princeton).
