Good article as ever thanks James. I think you alude to this, but a point perhaps to add is that there are a lot of mystic-predictioneers that 'get things wrong' who never intended on being right in the first place. For example, an s&p500 prediction of a 20% gain may end up being incorrect when it comes in at a third of that...but if it assisted in driving the price up, or benefitted materially those that were upselling it, then the accuracy was never the goal...sensationalism that drives sales or personal gain was the aim. Looking at the Hillary vs trump image you used is another example. A bought and paid for legacy media shills its own agenda, so reality is less important than the reality (fabricated) they are telling you...in fact the hope is that by telling you loudly and often that up is down, perhaps they will succeed in changing your mind. Would you agree that some of the time, and increasingly much of the time, predictions are not a true reflection of a genuine expectation, rather an opportunity to shill, to sell and to self serve an agenda?
Great point! And thank you, as always, for the kind words. I agree that forecasts could be used for signaling (with varying degrees of sincerity about the actual forecast. I suppose we could break social science forecasts down into: 1) Mystic-type predictions, where the forecaster knows it's made up, 2) Pseudo-scientific forecasts (many econ/finance forecasters are of this lot -- good people who mostly believe they've got a method, even if they're struggling with cognitive dissonance), and 3) Insincere "forecasts" that are just meant to sway public opinion on something... we see this in politics, in finance, in authoritarian regimes, too. I could add 4) Accurate forecasts, but I suppose they're rare as hen's teeth. Happy New Year!
Good article as ever thanks James. I think you alude to this, but a point perhaps to add is that there are a lot of mystic-predictioneers that 'get things wrong' who never intended on being right in the first place. For example, an s&p500 prediction of a 20% gain may end up being incorrect when it comes in at a third of that...but if it assisted in driving the price up, or benefitted materially those that were upselling it, then the accuracy was never the goal...sensationalism that drives sales or personal gain was the aim. Looking at the Hillary vs trump image you used is another example. A bought and paid for legacy media shills its own agenda, so reality is less important than the reality (fabricated) they are telling you...in fact the hope is that by telling you loudly and often that up is down, perhaps they will succeed in changing your mind. Would you agree that some of the time, and increasingly much of the time, predictions are not a true reflection of a genuine expectation, rather an opportunity to shill, to sell and to self serve an agenda?
Great point! And thank you, as always, for the kind words. I agree that forecasts could be used for signaling (with varying degrees of sincerity about the actual forecast. I suppose we could break social science forecasts down into: 1) Mystic-type predictions, where the forecaster knows it's made up, 2) Pseudo-scientific forecasts (many econ/finance forecasters are of this lot -- good people who mostly believe they've got a method, even if they're struggling with cognitive dissonance), and 3) Insincere "forecasts" that are just meant to sway public opinion on something... we see this in politics, in finance, in authoritarian regimes, too. I could add 4) Accurate forecasts, but I suppose they're rare as hen's teeth. Happy New Year!