Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

by Philip E. Tetlock

In one of history’s great ironies, scientists today know vastly more than their colleagues a century ago, and possess vastly more data-crunching power, but they are much less confident in the prospects for perfect predictability.

People liked clarity and precision in principle but when it came time to make clear and precise forecasts they weren’t so keen on numbers. Some said it felt unnatural or awkward, which it does when you’ve spent a lifetime using vague language, but that’s a weak argument against change. Others expressed an aesthetic revulsion. Language has its own poetry, they felt, and it’s tacky to talk explicitly about numerical odds. It makes you sound like a bookie. Kent wasn’t impressed. “I’d rather be a bookie than a goddamn poet,” was his legendary response.

It’s natural to be drawn to the inside view. It’s usually concrete and filled with engaging detail we can use to craft a story about what’s going on. The outside view is typically abstract, bare, and doesn’t lend itself so readily to storytelling.

The distinction drawn between "inside" and "outside" view seems related to the concept of Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE), where is its assumed that a strangers behavior reflects internal attributes (inside view) rather than situational factors (outside view). FAE was discussed at length in "Talking to Strangers" by Malcolm Gladwell.