This was a tough article to define, because I originally thought this would be great for the Building Snowmobiles category. Col. Boyd would have liked this, because this author echoed many of the philosophies Boyd had. From the importance of randomness in warfare(experts have a hard time with randomness–great for beating an expert on the battlefield), to Boyd’s aversion to being called an expert or committing to one doctrine because of what it implies–that he knew everything or that doctrine was the end all. And according to this article, I would definitely define Boyd as a Fox, and not a Hedgehog:
What makes some forecasters better than others?
The most important factor was not how much education or experience the experts had but how they thought. You know the famous line that [philosopher] Isaiah Berlin borrowed from a Greek poet, “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing”? The better forecasters were like Berlin’s foxes: self-critical, eclectic thinkers who were willing to update their beliefs when faced with contrary evidence, were doubtful of grand schemes and were rather modest about their predictive ability. The less successful forecasters were like hedgehogs: They tended to have one big, beautiful idea that they loved to stretch, sometimes to the breaking point. They tended to be articulate and very persuasive as to why their idea explained everything. The media often love hedgehogs.
I also read this and started looking back at all of the examples of foxes and hedgehogs in media and in this industry. From the anchorman on some cable news show, to some jackass you have come across out in the field or even online, all trying to convince us that they are the so-called ‘expert’. With the studies that have been presented by Phil, it is nice to see what really defines a forecaster or so-called expert. I am sure that some of the same rules apply to Opinion Leaders or Mavens, and further solidify the reasons why we even listen to these folks. It also gives a person a set of rules to follow, if they want to be more respected as a teacher, forecaster, leader, or Maven. Be the fox. Be the self-critical, eclectic thinker that is willing to update your beliefs when faced with contrary evidence, and always question grand schemes and be modest about your ability to predict. You can definitely apply that to whatever niche you claim as yours, and constantly improve on your standing as leader in your field. –Matt
—————————————————————–
Why the experts missed the crash
Which forecasters should you trust on the direction of the economy and the markets? Ask Philip Tetlock, who knows the kind of expert worth listening to – and what to listen for.
By Eric Schurenberg, Money Magazine
Last Updated: February 18, 2009: 4:10 PM ET
(Money Magazine) — You’ve probably never wanted expert insight more than today – and never trusted it less. After all, the intelligent, articulate, well-paid authorities voicing these opinions are the ones who created the crisis or failed to predict it or lost 30% of your 401(k) in it.
Yet we can’t tear ourselves away. The crisis has brought record ratings to CNBC and its parade of talking heads. You’re probably still entrusting your portfolio to the experts running mutual funds. Despite everything, we can’t shake the belief that elite forecasters know better than the rest of us what the future holds.
The record, unfortunately, proves no such thing. And no one knows that record better than Philip Tetlock, 54, a professor of organizational behavior at the Haas Business School at the University of California-Berkeley. Tetlock is the world’s top expert on, well, top experts. Some 25 years ago, he began an experiment to quantify the forecasting skill of political experts.