Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Are Next to Worthless, and You Can Do Better

I like this book. It's a great addition to my skeptical library and so I suggest you buy it.Here is my criticism of it: Dan Gardner finds forecasting of future trends and events wanting. I would not write it off as readily as he does. To do otherwise would be to stop trying to do something we might well improve at. Of course human societies are subject to all the uncertainties explained by Chaos Theory, but so is the the weather and we can now predict that rather accurately a week in advance.Consider this example for why we should keep trying to predict future events and social trends. The hardly suppressed glorifying vein in which anthropologists describe Ethiopian stick fighting might, for example, understand more about the reasons for and consequences of such behaviour if they tried to understand and better develop ways of seeking to understand the complex causes and consequences of such violent “traditions”. Because compelling and plausible rhetoric is nothing more than an invented subjective cop-out that helps us to understand nothing more than that those churning out such work are producing explanations that are easily swallowed by those with an appetite for pseudo social science and easily digestible sound bites sponsored by credulous ‘believers’ who employ them in universities, attend their lectures, publish their papers and buy their books. Have anthropologists ever studied in any depth the myth making within own academic tribes? Not to my knowledge.Anthropologists have for years waxed lyrical about the stories and traditions of various cultures. However, there is a saying that if you cannot say what something will do next then you don’t understand it at all. Where, for example were the ‘expert’ warnings from expert anthropologists that AK47 automatic weapon ownership among stick fighting tribes would lead to widespread massacres?In the natural sciences billions of Pounds, Dollars and Euros is being invested in projects such as CERN to discover what makes the physical universe work. Meanwhile we understand very little about what makes society tick. Apologists for this sad state of affairs will tell you that in the complex and chaotic social world that it is impossible to consistently and accurately predict what will happen next. But might that be a future babble myth in its own right?Humankind in all societies and at all times has created myths ancient and modern in order to bring understanding and to create culturally embedded “truths” to explain what would otherwise be unexplainable random events in nature and unfathomable general patterns of human social behaviour.Most remarkably, research in the 1960s and 70’s proved that many of the ancient myths and fairytales, regardless of where they originated, contain essentially identical core elements, which are to be found from examining the underlying structure of relationships among the elements of the story, rather than from the content of the story itself. Perhaps modern myths and supermyths also have identical core elements, some of which might reflect the core element of religious dogma. In the same way that faith based religions seek to make sense of the world by offering us the thoughts of men dressed up as supernatural 'truths', might it be possible that the current orthodox explanation that social behavior is too complex and subject to too many random events and contingencies to be capable of prediction be itself nothing more than a hugely ironic modern myth created in order to 'know' that it is impossible to know enough about society in order to reliably predict with significant accuracy what will happen next in the seemingly random nature of human affairs? If so, such a myth does nothing more than insist that we have credulous faith in the skeptical thoughts of others and that we should not commit the ignorant sin of questioning current 'knowledge' by raising and testing new hypothesis in this particular area. Have anthropologists, ever studied in any depth such myth making within own academic tribes? Not to my knowledge.If myths are no longer good enough for explaining natural phenomena why should we continue accepting them when it comes to explaining human behavior?Perhaps we should be seeking massive investment beyond the scale of CERN if we wish to move beyond current mythical post-hoc rhetorical explanations for cause and effect in our diverse societies? What is more important, after all: (a) discovering interesting, useful and deadly stuff like how to split the atom and the existence of the Higgs Bosun particle or (b) accurately and consistently predicting when the next nuclear strike or holocaust will take place or the next economic disaster will occur unless we know how to effectively intervene? Perhaps predicting the future is not so difficult as we think. One promising route worth exploring further might be to better evaluate the effectiveness of PR, propaganda, public information campaigns and other attitude change initiatives , and to improve evidence based practice in this area. After all, what do such behavior change initiatives seek to achieve if not to influence the future? And in case you were thinking that I've fallen foul of failing to consider Popper's fallacy of induction let me end on a question: isn't the entire notion of the fallacy of induction based on past evidence of the dangers of relying upon inductive logic, which ironically means that it is based on the very fallacy it seeks to reveal?Dr Mike Sutton is the author 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' the book that famously used big data analysis to prove that Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarizing the theory of natural selection from Patrick Matthew. Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

Summary:A fascinating book that explains why human beings crave certainty about the future and why we're suckers for people (Experts) who make predictions about what will happen next.A little long-winded at times. Almost too many examples of failure. But ends with useful ideas on how to make better quality decisions.Recommended.Full Review:Who can you trust to tell you what's going to happen in the future?No one.Especially 'Experts'. Oh no, don't trust any of those...At least that's the way I feel now after reading Future Babble by Dan Gardner. In this serious book, Gardner explains why we have an in-built desire to know the future. He also demonstrates, again and again, why we are so bad at prediction.Yet, despite the countless attempts at predicting the future, we still seek out people who claim to know what's coming. We will even pay attention to those who make new predictions when their previous prediction proved to be wrong e.g. an Economist revising their predictions for the economy when new economic data undermines their previously expressed views.In the book, you're introduced to the metaphors of 'Hedgehogs' and 'Foxes'.Hedgehogs are experts or opinion makers who have one 'Big Idea' or concept through which they see the world. They use this basic concept to make predictions about the future. Sometimes they're right but usually they're not. But when they're shown to have been wrong, they'll claim that there were other factors at play or that their prediction is still valid but, 'not just yet' and so on.Foxes, on the other hand, take a more balanced and nuanced view of the world. They are willing to incorporate different pieces of data into their worldview. They're more prepared to accept that they might be wrong about their ideas and predictions.Now, whilst Foxes don't get it right either, they've got a better chance of making better quality predictions because of their ability to see complexity. At the very least, they're prepared to accept that they don't have all of the information and that the world is a complex place i.e. one simple explanation will not do.Gardner uses these metaphors throughout the book. They're not his in fact (they're from Professor Tetlock's famous study into 'Expert Political Judgement) but they help you see why some Experts get it so wrong and whilst others can (occasionally) get closer to the mark.My only criticism of the book is that because Gardner describes one predictive failure after another, I got a little tired reading about them. Not that they weren't interesting and often amusing but more that I got 'failure fatigue'.After reading about several poor attempts to predict future events, I 'got it' and just wanted to skip to any part of the book where Gardner could provide suggestions on how to make better quality predictions.This he does in part. Although he doesn't attempt to give the reader a 'Prediction Tool Kit'. Indeed, he makes it very plain that we can't predict the future. Although that won't stop us trying...

I came to this book having read Dan Gardner's excellent previous one, Risk. The purpose of this one is to explain that the so called "experts" who occupy most of the space in mainstream media are very seldom right, despite their claims to be so. This is basically because the commentators attractive to news editors are the ones who can express neatly packaged certain, dogmatic, opinions because they don't deviate from their own overarching theory about their topic - and are therefore often wrong. The more considered experts, who are only willing to give much broader, qualified (i.e. boring) views are shunted to the sidelines. And, as other reviewers have said, while that point is both interesting and important, it can be summed up fairly quickly and isn't really all that surprising. So in the end, the book is left making that same point again and again in different ways with pages and pages of very dry examples. As a consequence its modest 268 pages feel like very heavy weather indeed and while the concept is fascinating, it just isn't fuel enough for a whole book. The subject is, if anything, more a footnote to the broader issue of the pre-packaging of news.

A very good and thoroughly enjoyable book on the industry of predictions, the reasons why we have such a strong psychological need to make sense of the future, and the reasons why we have such a tough time remembering and accepting the fact that our predictions were wrong. The premisse of the book is simple and clear, and the book is written very clearly and effectivelly. Worth reading