Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Hardcover)

by Philip E. Tetlock (Author)
Key Phrases: reputational bets, belief updaters, unpacking condition, New York, Soviet Union, South Africa (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review
"... the best lesson of Tetlock's book may be the one that he seems most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself". -- Louis Menand, The New Yorker

"He discovered that the accuracy of an expert's predictions decreased the greater the person's self-confidence, celebrity and depth of knowledge" -- Michael Kesterton, The Globe & Mail

"Tetlock demonstrates in meticulous academic detail that most expert forecasters are no better than the rest of us". -- James Harkin, The Guardian

"Tetlock discovered that specialists were no more reliable than non-specialists at guessing what is liable to happen next". -- Stephen McGinty, The Scotsman

"Tetlock dismisses the comforting notion that public life is 'a marketplace of ideas". -- Nick Cohen, The Observer

"Tetlock's findings are disconsoling for anyone who believes that expertise confers reliable forecasting powers. -- Paul Monk, Financial Review

"The bottom line is that experts are no better at making predictions than dart-throwing monkeys". -- Ellen Goodman, The Boston Globe

"The results of his painstaking research are complex, nuanced, and contingent". -- John T. Jost, Science

"You have been a world-class sap for years. Why? For listening to the economic and political forecasts of experts". -- Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune

Review
It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock's new book . . . that people who make prediction their business--people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables--are no better than the rest of us. When they're wrong, they're rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. . . . It would be nice if there were fewer partisans on television disguised as "analysts" and "experts". . . . But the best lesson of Tetlock's book may be the one that he seems most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself.
(Louis Menand The New Yorker )

Before anyone turns an ear to the panels of pundits, they might do well to obtain a copy of Phillip Tetlock's new book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? The Berkeley psychiatrist has apparently made a 20-year study of predictions by the sorts who appear as experts on TV and get quoted in newspapers and found that they are no better than the rest of us at prognostication.
(Jim Coyle Toronto Star )

Tetlock uses science and policy to brilliantly explore what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events and to examine why experts are often wrong in their forecasts.
(Choice )

[This] book . . . Marshals powerful evidence to make [its] case. Expert Political Judgment . . . Summarizes the results of a truly amazing research project. . . . The question that screams out from the data is why the world keeps believing that "experts" exist at all.
(Geoffrey Colvin Fortune )

Philip Tetlock has just produced a study which suggests we should view expertise in political forecasting--by academics or intelligence analysts, independent pundits, journalists or institutional specialists--with the same skepticism that the well-informed now apply to stockmarket forecasting. . . . It is the scientific spirit with which he tackled his project that is the most notable thing about his book, but the findings of his inquiry are important and, for both reasons, everyone seriously concerned with forecasting, political risk, strategic analysis and public policy debate would do well to read the book.
(Paul Monk Australian Financial Review )

Phillip E. Tetlock does a remarkable job . . . applying the high-end statistical and methodological tools of social science to the alchemistic world of the political prognosticator. The result is a fascinating blend of science and storytelling, in the the best sense of both words.
(William D. Crano PsysCRITIQUES )

Mr. Tetlock's analysis is about political judgment but equally relevant to economic and commercial assessments.
(John Kay Financial Times )

Why do most political experts prove to be wrong most of time? For an answer, you might want to browse through a very fascinating study by Philip Tetlock . . . who in Expert Political Judgment contends that there is no direct correlation between the intelligence and knowledge of the political expert and the quality of his or her forecasts. If you want to know whether this or that pundit is making a correct prediction, don't ask yourself what he or she is thinking--but how he or she is thinking.
(Leon Hadar Business Times )

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 352 pages
• Publisher: Princeton University Press (July 5, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0691123020
• ISBN-13: 978-0691123028
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.3 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #195,095 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A classic of Political Science & Cognitive Psychology, January 5, 2007

By	Dr. Frank Stech (Glenndale, MD USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Paperback)

Tetlock shows conclusively two key points: First, the best experts in making political estimates and forecasts are no more accurate than fairly simple mathematical models of their estimative processes. This is yet another confirmation of what Robyn Dawes termed "the robust beauty of simple linear models." The inability of human experts to out-perform models based on their expertise has been demonstrated in over one hundred fields of expertise over fifty years of research; one of the most robust findings in social science. Political experts are no exception.
Secondly, Tetlock demonstrates that experts who know something about a number of related topics (foxes) predict better than experts who know a great deal about one thing (hedgehogs). Generalist knowledge adds to accuracy.
Tetlock's survey of this research is clear, crisp, and compelling. His work has direct application to world affairs. For example he is presenting his findings to a conference of Intelligence Community leaders next week (Jan 2007) at the invitation of the Director of National Intelligence.
"Expert Political Judgment" is recommended to anyone who depends on political experts, which is pretty much all of us. Tetlock helps the non-experts to know more about what the experts know, how they know it, and how much good it does them in making predictions.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Anyone who forecasts or does formal planning for a living..., March 31, 2007

By	Milo Jones "Milo Jones" (Italy & US) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Paperback)

...can't afford to do without this book. It is scary to think that many people will be writing PhDs in the Social Sciences, and then be called upon to make or influence policy without being familiar with this book's central arguments and evidence.

7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars brilliant and encouraging, October 24, 2006

By	reader (Syracuse NY) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Paperback)

Why isn't this book on the front page of every newspaper everywhere? The author makes a cogent argument that informed amateurs are as good as "experts" in seriously important fields from investing to politics. He provides experimental evidence that this is the case. This is the hypothesis that a bunch of farmers and merchants tested when they sat down and organized the United States of America. This is the hypothesis that every smart investor proves when he meets or beats hedge funds spending millions on experts and computer power. A very empowering book. Well-written, well-argued, well-referenced. I dare you to read this one and not give it to a friend.