Be strategically wrong
Wrong Tomorrow attempts to bring accountability to pundits by tracking and verifying predictions. But this might not be possible in the general case if the experts are working against you:
Forecasting plays a vital role in human activity. Consumers, managers, and politicians make their decisions in part based on their anticipation of future events…The complexities in properly anticipating future events may encourage decision makers to seek experts' advice. The main difficulty is, however, that professional forecasts may not be reliable. If an expert is informed (i.e., he knows the relevant odds), then he can reveal the relevant probabilities to decision makers. However, if an expert is uninformed (i.e., he knows nothing about the relevant odds), then he may mislead the decision makers. A fundamental question is therefore how to determine whether experts are informed.
A test either rejects or does not reject each expert based on the observed data and the profile of the probabilities announced by the experts…However, consider the case in which all experts are uninformed (i.e., they do not know anything about true probabilities). We show that they can still independently produce false forecasts that are likely to both pass the test, no matter how the data evolve in the future. Hence, the data may not suffice to effectively discredit uninformed, but strategic, experts.
Olszewski and Sandroni. Manipulability of comparative tests. Published online before print. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812602106 PNAS 106 (13) 5029-5034
photo cc-by dsevilla
