Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Brin: predictions

Expand Messages
  • The Fool
    ... Possibly. Or is it that some people are wrong more often than other people? The people who tend to be right have this habit of also tending to be
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > From: David Brin <dbrin@...>
      >
      >
      > > Holy incestuous Feedback Batman!
      > >
      > > It'll never work. Heisenberg had it right.
      >
      >
      > SO you are saying that nobody is right more often than
      > other people?

      Possibly. Or is it that some people are wrong more often than other
      people? The people who tend to be right have this habit of also
      tending to be ignored. The people who tend to be wrong tend to not be
      ignored.

      >
      > Or that some people do not deserve more credibility
      > than others, for being right more often? Hm. Unique.

      I was mostly reffering to the bit from the first paragraph about the
      markets. But it's similar. You can't know you're right until after
      the fact, in which case you can't predict who will be right without
      effecting positively or negatively whether they will be right. All of
      society is one big nested group of nested feedback cycles (a human is
      really just a system of feedback systems).

      It reminds me of this one episode of Logans Run where this guy invents
      time travel and comes to the future, but the future is that dystopia of
      the Logans Run Movie / Tv Series. So he goes back in time in order to
      try and prevent that future dystopia from happening. In the end it
      turns out that his very going back to try prevent it was what caused it
      to happen.

      But I digress, I was mostly reffering to the market bit.
      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • David Brin
      ... SO you are saying that nobody is right more often than other people? Or that some people do not deserve more credibility than others, for being right more
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > Holy incestuous Feedback Batman!
        >
        > It'll never work. Heisenberg had it right.


        SO you are saying that nobody is right more often than
        other people?

        Or that some people do not deserve more credibility
        than others, for being right more often? Hm. Unique.
        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • The Fool
        ... But it is also true that the attention some people get affect whether what they say happens or not. Incestuous feedback. So if you start pegging person
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: David Brin <dbrin@...>
          >
          > I agree that most market computer models wind up
          > screwing themselves because the market has an immune
          > reaction, adapting to one participant's success.
          >
          > Still, some people are right a LOT more than others.

          But it is also true that the attention some people get affect whether
          what they say happens or not. Incestuous feedback. So if you start
          pegging person A of being slightly more right than offen than people
          will start treating A's thoughts as if they should be right which leads
          straight to him being slightly more right more often. Wash and repeat.

          But what if Person A's ideas are flawed or bad in some way and he
          starts getting treated as if his ideas are genius? Like say...Marx.
          Or the people who invented that Yeshua of Nazereth character?

          > Past performance does not predict future success. But
          > it is relevant to competance.

          I think this is incorrect, hence my counterexamples above. I think
          competence can be unrelated.

          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • David Brin
          I agree that most market computer models wind up screwing themselves because the market has an immune reaction, adapting to one participant s success. Still,
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree that most market computer models wind up
            screwing themselves because the market has an immune
            reaction, adapting to one participant's success.

            Still, some people are right a LOT more than others.
            Past performance does not predict future success. But
            it is relevant to competance.
            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Dan Minette
            ... From: David Brin To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:53 PM Subject: Re: Brin:
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "David Brin" <dbrin@...>
              To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
              Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:53 PM
              Subject: Re: Brin: predictions


              >
              > > Holy incestuous Feedback Batman!
              > >
              > > It'll never work. Heisenberg had it right.
              >
              >
              > SO you are saying that nobody is right more often than
              > other people?
              >
              > Or that some people do not deserve more credibility
              > than others, for being right more often? Hm. Unique.

              I think that the problem with such a technique is properly identifying the
              statistics associated with being right n times out of m. Let me give two
              examples that frame the problem.

              1) Let us consider a single elimination tournament based on coin flipping.
              Person 1 flips a coin. If person 2 matches the flip, they win; otherwise
              person 1 wins. If there 2^16 people entered in the tournament, there will
              be one person who won 16 times in a row. This person, with a perfect
              score, is no more likely to win the next coin flip game than anyone else.

              A real life situation that almost matches this is the performance of
              various investment funds. There are funds that boast of being better than
              the average of all other funds for 9 years out of the last 10. Yet, when
              funds like these are examined, they tend to have no more chance of being
              above the average for the 11th to 15th year than any of the other funds.
              It's akin to there being a 50-50 chance that a given physician was in the
              bottom half of his/her class at medical school. Past performance is, when
              considering funds in this manner, rarely an indicator of future
              performance.

              There are exceptions to this rule, of course, a very good case for Buffet
              can be made: that he really does know more about investing than most fund
              managers. His performance is longer term, and more statistically
              significant.

              2) Richard Feynman is the classic example that I have for the other end of
              the spectrum. As with many areas of physics, Dr. Feynman made a rough
              guess predicting the rapidity distribution of pions in high energy
              interactions. Feynman scaling was found to be right, to the order of
              magnitude that he predicted this.

              As you know, but many on the list do not, he made many intuitive
              predictions, such as this, after he was a high profile physicist. If you
              look at the predictions made by physicists with a high profile, you will
              see his stand out. The percentage of times he "guessed right" was near
              legendary when I went to school. There was a rule of thumb that a Feynman
              guess was worth more than careful computation by nearly anyone else.

              My gut feeling is that an open prediction registry will be closer to the
              funds manager case than the Feynman case. I think a critical factor is
              limiting the number of potential candidates for being right. There are not
              that many physicists who have already done stand-out work. Thus, we do not
              have enough predictions to have a track record like Feynman emerge from
              mere chance.

              In economics, the clear example is Greenspan. List member and fairly well
              known economist, Brad DeLong, has noted how often Greenspan has guessed
              right when he himself has guessed wrong. He talked about cloning Greenspan
              because he has an uncanny ability to "guess right".

              Since there is only one chairman of the Fed. Reserve Board at any one time,
              this track record cannot be explained by statistics alone. There has to be
              some skill that Greenspan has that Brad does not. Brad acknowledges the
              skill, but cannot put his finger on exactly what it is.

              The common denominator that I see between Greenspan and Feynman is that
              they demonstrated, apart from their intuitive ability, above average skill
              in the field before many their guesses went on record. This culling
              significantly lowers the possibility that such a track record is due to
              chance alone. This allows those with unique intuition to rise above the
              background of lucky guessers.

              The final factor that I wish to consider is what I'd call the "astrology"
              factor. If you look at general predictions of astrology for most people,
              there will almost always be a manner in which the predictions were right.
              The reason for this is not due to a real power of the planets over our
              lives, of course, but the real power of people to match vague predictions
              to what actually happened and thus see the predictions validated. In the
              case of Feynman and Greenspan, there were hard numbers that their
              predictions can be matched against. I believe that aspects of science
              fiction novels that are later matched to reality can suffer from the same
              "20-20 hindsight" problem. The parts of the prediction that match are
              focused upon, and the differences are minimized. Thus, the predictions
              seem more accurate than they really were.

              So, while I am intrigued by the idea of a predictions registry, I think
              that there are two factors that must be considered before such a registry
              could really be useful.

              1) A means of lowering the probability that good looking track records will
              emerge from chance alone.
              2) A means of setting firm criteria for determining sucess (which of course
              ties into 1).

              Dan M.

              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • The Fool
              ... astrology ... people, ... right. ... our ... predictions ... the ... science ... same ... are ... predictions ... AKA Subjective Validation, Confirmation
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                > From: Dan Minette <dsummersminet@...>
                >
                > From: "David Brin" <dbrin@...>
                >
                > >
                > > > Holy incestuous Feedback Batman!
                > > >
                > > > It'll never work. Heisenberg had it right.
                > >
                > >
                > > SO you are saying that nobody is right more often than
                > > other people?
                > >
                > > Or that some people do not deserve more credibility
                > > than others, for being right more often? Hm. Unique.
                >
                >
                > The final factor that I wish to consider is what I'd call the
                "astrology"
                > factor. If you look at general predictions of astrology for most
                people,
                > there will almost always be a manner in which the predictions were
                right.
                > The reason for this is not due to a real power of the planets over
                our
                > lives, of course, but the real power of people to match vague
                predictions
                > to what actually happened and thus see the predictions validated. In
                the
                > case of Feynman and Greenspan, there were hard numbers that their
                > predictions can be matched against. I believe that aspects of
                science
                > fiction novels that are later matched to reality can suffer from the
                same
                > "20-20 hindsight" problem. The parts of the prediction that match
                are
                > focused upon, and the differences are minimized. Thus, the
                predictions
                > seem more accurate than they really were.

                AKA Subjective Validation, Confirmation Bias, and the Forer Effect:

                <<http://skepdic.com/forer.html>>

                <<http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html>>

                <<http://skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html>>

                And of course the for lack of better term the "nodding" effect:
                <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001505.html>>
                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              • Nick Arnett
                Perhaps a better question is, are some *communities* right more often than most? ... -- Nick Arnett narnett@mccmedia.com Messages: 408-904-7198
                Message 7 of 9 , Nov 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Perhaps a better question is, are some *communities* right more often than
                  most?

                  On 11/1/05, David Brin <dbrin@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I agree that most market computer models wind up
                  > screwing themselves because the market has an immune
                  > reaction, adapting to one participant's success.
                  >
                  > Still, some people are right a LOT more than others.
                  > Past performance does not predict future success. But
                  > it is relevant to competance.
                  > _______________________________________________
                  > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                  >



                  --
                  Nick Arnett
                  narnett@...
                  Messages: 408-904-7198
                  _______________________________________________
                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.