korrents

← People and their mental models

Philip Tetlock's mental models

2 claims Philip Tetlock made fit 1 mental model. Most often: Many models, not one. Everything they said here.

Models we see in what they say

Our reading: their claim applies the idea without naming it. The claim is theirs; filing it here is ours.

Many models, not one

Carry many models from many fields and use them together; with only one, every problem looks like a nail for your hammer.

Used by 15 others

Forecasters modest about how predictable politics is, the 'foxes', made more accurate predictions than theoretically confident 'hedgehogs'.

  1. Philip Tetlock Psychologist and political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania Forecasters who were more modest about what could be accomplished predictably were actually generating more accurate predictions than forecasters who were more confident about what could be achieved. We called these theoretically confident forecasters "hedgehogs." We called these more modest, self-critical forecasters "foxes," drawing on Isaiah Berlin's famous essay, "The Hedgehog and the Fox." How to Win at Forecasting (Edge conversation)edge.org · 6 Dec 2012All korrents from this piece
    Their wordsForecasters who were more modest about what could be accomplished predictably were actually generating more accurate predictions than forecasters who were more confident about what could be achieved. We called these theoretically confident forecasters "hedgehogs." We called these more modest, self-critical forecasters "foxes," drawing on Isaiah Berlin's famous essay, "The Hedgehog and the Fox."

    ↗How to Win at Forecasting (Edge conversation)edge.org

    6 Dec 2012

A fox who sees many factors in play cannot judge in a blink; they reason 'on the one hand, and on the other' and must reconcile the conflicting arguments.

  1. Philip Tetlock Psychologist and political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania If you're a fox and you believe there's some truth to the generalization that rising powers and hegemons tend to come into conflict with each other, but there are lots of other factors in play in the current geopolitical environment that make it less likely that China and the United States will come into conflict. That doesn't allow blink anymore, does it? It leads to "on the one hand, and on the other" patterns of reasoning–and you've got to strike some kind of integrative resolution of the conflicting arguments. How to Win at Forecasting (Edge conversation)edge.org · 6 Dec 2012All korrents from this piece
    Their wordsIf you're a fox and you believe there's some truth to the generalization that rising powers and hegemons tend to come into conflict with each other, but there are lots of other factors in play in the current geopolitical environment that make it less likely that China and the United States will come into conflict. That doesn't allow blink anymore, does it? It leads to "on the one hand, and on the other" patterns of reasoning–and you've got to strike some kind of integrative resolution of the conflicting arguments.

    ↗How to Win at Forecasting (Edge conversation)edge.org

    6 Dec 2012