Um, Do These “Experts” Get ANYTHING Right??

Those who already are doubting me on this article, I present THIS as “Exhibit A”:

Why Experts are Almost Always Wrong

No one, not even the experts, really knows what’s about to happen

This crystal ball won’t help you.

This crystal ball won’t help you. (lukesaagi)

SMITHSONIANMAG.COM

Every time there’s a national disaster, a gigantic event, a shooting, a breakthrough, really any news at all, you can rely on television news to find an expert. Some of them know quite a lot about what happened, what will happen, and why. But when it comes to a lot of experts, they really have no idea what they’re talking about.

Blogger Eric Barker points out that political experts’ predicitons are only slightly better than a random guess, and way worse than a statistical model. In fact, so called experts were better at predicting events outside their own field. Barker points to a study from the 1980′s, when Philip Tetlock had 284 political “experts” make about a hundred predictions. The study is summarized in the book Everything Is Obvious* Once You Know the Answer:

For each of these predictions, Tetlock insisted that the experts specify which of two outcomes they expected and also assign a probability to their prediction. He did so in a way that confident predictions scored more points when correct, but also lost more points when mistaken. With those predictions in hand, he then sat back and waited for the events themselves to play out. Twenty years later, he published his results, and what he found was striking: Although the experts performed slightly better than random guessing, they did not perform as well as even a minimally sophisticated statistical model. Even more surprisingly, the experts did slightly better when operating outside their area of expertise than within it…

Another study found that “experts” who try to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases weren’t that much better than a computer. The world saw evidence of that in their recent decision about health care, surprising nearly every “expert” out there.

But that’s politics. Other fields should be better, right? Nope. Technology is the same way. Another scientist analyzed the accuracy of technology-trend predictions. About eighty percent of them were wrong, regardless of whether those predictions were made by experts or not.

In 2005, Tetlock wrote a book about expert prediction called “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” In it, he explains that not only are experts often wrong, but they’re nearly never called out on it. The New Yorker explains:

When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake.

Tetlock points out that while we’re terrible at predictions, experts fall into two “cognitive styles” when they’re making those predictions: foxes and hedgehogsThe Huffington Post summarizes:

Foxes know many things while hedgehogs know one big thing. Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows one’s focus and increases confidence, but it also blurs dissenting views until they are no longer visible, thereby transforming data collection into bias confirmation and morphing self-deception into self-assurance. The world is a messy, complex, and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which foxes are comfortable with but hedgehogs are not. Low scorers in Tetlock’s study were “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters.” By contrast, says Tetlock, high scorers were “thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible ‘ad hocery’ that require sticking together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”

But what about the 10,000 hours technique? Did you really just spend 10,000 hours in order to have only a slightly better than random chance at predicting the outcome of your chosen field?

Probably. Barker cites another book, Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else:

Extensive research in a wide range of fields shows that many people not only fail to become outstandingly good at what they do, no matter how many years they spend doing it, they frequently don’t even get any better than they were when they started.

In field after field, when it came to centrally important skillsstockbrokers recommending stocks, parole officers predicting recidivism, college admissions officials judging applicants—people with lots of experience were no better at their jobs than those with very little experience.

The moral here?

We really have no idea what’s going to happen… ever.

===========

The above is from 2012…9 years ago.

“Has it got any better?”

FIRST, you did read ALL the above didn’t you??

Secondly, people are, well, people. We haven’t really changed since Eden. There truly is nothing new under the Sun.

Now, let’s look with a THINKING EYE toward today’s so-called “Experts”. 

Let me “set the stage” first. I’ll posit direct quotes, stats, evidence…from the direct back-and-forth with these “experts” and then apply LOGIC, REASON, AND CRITICAL THINKING, and see where things shake out at.

Image

Author of Tell Your Children. Revolting. Have you ever had a man go away for business come back with a tan?

Alex Berenson
@AlexBerenson
This, friends, is what you call a smoking gun. Not so much for Saint Fauci – just the entire community of virologists and scientists who insisted for a year that the China-GOF-2019 virus couldn’t possibly have come out of a lab, nosiree Bob.

“They did a hard flip midstream. The obvious question is why. To say they “studied the science” is complete BS.

It’s obvious: Daszak got to Fauci.

Fauci got to Andersen , et. al. to write the phony paper

This is impeachable news #FireFauci

Fauci FOIA emails show a man prioritizing protection of his institutions, & not a man interested in getting to the bottom of the mysteries surrounding COVID-19.

Bureaucrat gonna bureaucrat, even if that meant total chaos & an 18 month disinformation campaign from the “experts.”

It is pretty clear what happened here; Fauci panicked and tried to cover his @ss over the obvious; a leak from a lab he funded and supported that led to massive misinterpretation of data and an unbelievable overreaction that caused immeasurable damage and suffering

And this, Fauci, is their person who has been the “head” of the NIH for 35 years. Whatever expertise he supposedly possesses, it is located in his posterior.Misleading the public in this matter is reprehensible. These are NOT honest, well intended deceptions.

I have been to a wet market and seen its horrifying reality. When I first heard that COVID originated there, my thought was those markets could incubate anything. The more I learned, the more I questioned that premise. Worth a read:
SOURCE.

Nicholas Wade

I’m a science writer and have worked on the staff of Nature, Science and, for many years, on the New York Times.

Origin of Covid — Following the Clues

Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

We all knew it came out of a lab. You had to do your homework & piece things together yourself but we knew. One big clue was that the more they pushed up against the idea that it came from a lab, the more you knew that was the truth.

“They” sat on info that could have aided a faster solution to save lives. Would not be a long leap to charge the ghouls, especially Fauci for involuntary manslaughter.

A researcher wrote to Fauci with a hypothesis that elements of the virus didn’t match what he and his colleagues thought was evolutionary. He said they would do more work That scientist and his colleagues later published an article stating that the virus was natural in origin.
Their hypothesis was proved incorrect by the data, and they stated that in the article.
People are running around claiming that the email from Kristian Anderson was proof (even though it was not), because it confirms their prior beliefs.
@K_G_Andersen opined two months later (March 2020) that the virus was not genetically engineered. I exposed his opinion as merely a belief. (A belief is NOT KNOWLEDGE!)This is how to expose the argument from authority!The WHO cites Andersen to attack lab-creation of the virus. Smh

Alex Berenson
@AlexBerenson

The greatest thing about this interview is that halfway through Fauci starts defending himself on the gain-of-function question (oh, the science changed, we got more data, I dint do nuffin wrong) – a question she has no idea exists and didn’t ask. WITH VIDEO.

If I have to listen to Fauci explain one more time how our understanding changes with time… as if we don’t all know that already. The whole point is that his understanding didn’t change, he just lied even when he knew better.

Per Fauci in Jan 2021, “double masking makes common sense”. The Fauci followers started double masking even though there was no “science” behind it. He just made it up. [My Note: And then laughed and laughed as he watched countless millions follow his every idiotic utterance!]

“Trust the science”. The science is ever changing but trust it. 

[My Notes: NOT so much that the science is changing on this. From all that we know this is not really that mysterious. What HAS muddied the discourse up from the beginning are the so-called “Experts”. There are two major groups for sourcing on ALL issues. The one’s on the dole from the government or a business/group that has something to gain and/or hide. The other is independent, critical thinking, ask questions and let the evidence say WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. Fauci is on the government dole, AND personally invested and tied to businesses and people IN the virology and vax fields…Fauci is NOT to be trusted any further than you can spit in a F5 Tornado! Period.]

Science doesn’t change the size of virus particles. For years (as recently as last May) the CDC said masks do not reduce the spread of influenza. The coronavirus particles are even smaller than the flu. That’s why Fauci originally said only the sick should wear masks.

Alex Berenson
@AlexBerenson

1/ Wowowow. The government (USG) planned to have the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) – an INDEPENDENT group – examine the origins of #SARSCoV2. How do I know? Fauci told a top  @CDCgov official about it in Feb. 2020. That NAS inquiry never happened, though.

Gee, I wonder why.

2/ Also, please note how Fauci distances himself from any questions about the origin in this note: “this is not my area of expertise and so I have backed off…” I guess in the 12 days since he emailed Auchincloss the gain of function paper he forgot all about it!

Also, having a group of “evolutionary biologists” study viral origins predetermines the conclusion, n’est-ce pas? #FauciLiedPeopleDied

Trust the science. Verify the scientist! (The longer they have worked for the government, the less they should be trusted!)

Hey @RandPaul , next time you have Fauci under oath, ask him what happened to the official federal investigation  @theNASEM was supposed to run on the origins of #sarscov2 – and why he instead worked in secret with other scientists to discourage examination of the lab leak theory.

Because that was clearly the (successful) intent of the paper that  @K_G_Andersen and others published in @naturemedicine (with the hidden backing of Fauci, his boss Francis Collins, and Sir Jeremy James Farrar of the Wellcome Trust).

Alex Berenson
@AlexBerenson

Real Scientists vs. Fauci & Kristian G. Andersen.

Fauci “The Fraud” is on the right…j/s…

I’ll close with this quote from a doctor NOT on the Government dole-

LIE: We don’t know much about coronavirus. 

This is one of the media’s [My Note: and government’s] favorite lies. It is much scarier if it is unknown. We know that coronavirus is a zoonotic disease. In other words, it’s natural hosts are birds and animals as opposed to humans. We vaccinate domestic animals for them. We know that four forms cause colds every year. We know it mutates and evolves just like the flu. We know it sometimes becomes deadly as it has in SARS and MERS. We have done medical studies on coronavirus as a coexisting illness in patients in the past.

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: