Guitar music is on its way out.
April 1, 2009 2:24 PM   Subscribe

Wrong Tomorrow is a bit like Long Bets, except shorter and without the bets.

  • Previously on Long Bets
  • Some articles about expert predictions
  • posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (15 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

     
    Either the submitters are cherry picking bad predictions to post, or some people have poor track records.

    See for example Dave Winer's performance.
    posted by zippy at 3:13 PM on April 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


    See for example Dave Winer's performance.

    Guy's a huge jerk too!
    posted by grobstein at 4:04 PM on April 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


    The third possibility is that obvious truths about the future aren't very interesting to either the speaker or their intended audience.
    posted by Navelgazer at 4:06 PM on April 1, 2009


    I like this site because you use it to track other people's predictions! (Right?) I look forward to public discussions of pundits including their predictive track records.
    posted by grobstein at 4:06 PM on April 1, 2009


    I hasten to amend my earlier comment to except those either in or watching a production of Annie.
    posted by Navelgazer at 4:09 PM on April 1, 2009 [3 favorites]


    I like the idea, but the execution... it's only got 54 predictions? Which means its a recent site? Yet is has predictions that were made several years ago and already labelled "wrong"?

    That's not good. There's already enough of an incentive to only submit more absurd claims; it shouldn't be made trivially easy to submit wrong claims.

    They should only accept predictions within, say, a week of them being made, and then only if they are still open at the time of submission.
    posted by Flunkie at 4:12 PM on April 1, 2009


    There's already enough of an incentive to only submit more absurd claims; it shouldn't be made trivially easy to submit wrong claims.

    Why not? If public figures are making absurd claims, why not call them on it?
    posted by scottreynen at 4:26 PM on April 1, 2009


    There's already enough of an incentive to only submit more absurd claims; it shouldn't be made trivially easy to submit wrong claims.
    Why not? If public figures are making absurd claims, why not call them on it?
    That would be fine, if the point of the site were to call people out on absurd claims. Ostensibly, though, the point of the site is ...

    Wait a minute. The point of the site, as delineated in the FAQ, has changed in the past half hour or so. It's currently:
    Research has shown that experts make predictions at a rate worse than chance. This site exists in order to hold people and media outlets accountable for pretending to see into an unpredictable future.
    Previously, I am almost certain, it was something far less ostensibly neutral - it was something like "The purpose of this site is to show that pundits are wrong more often than normal people".

    Not "whether", but "that". I'm virtually certain. The author of the site has very recently taken pains to attempt to hide his bias in a thin veneer of neutrality.

    But in any case, the site is and was claiming to demonstrate that pundits are wrong more often than something-or-other. Doing so by cherry picking incorrect claims is mere sophistry, regardless of whether the conclusion the site is trying to back is correct or not.
    posted by Flunkie at 4:47 PM on April 1, 2009


    See for example Dave Winer's performance.

    Guy's a huge jerk too!


    Not to mention a major Winer.
    posted by DU at 5:01 PM on April 1, 2009


    How does one become a "pundit"?
    posted by Jimbob at 6:08 PM on April 1, 2009


    I think you just have to have more opinions than most people.
    posted by danb at 6:43 PM on April 1, 2009


    You're either born one or you marry into a family.
    posted by grobstein at 6:44 PM on April 1, 2009


    The author also posted about the project on his blog, explaining some more about his motivations:
    None of these really matched what I was looking for - a simple list of predictions and outcomes maintained in order to hold pundits accountable, and perhaps pressure the media into no longer reporting expert predictions as news.
    posted by dreamyshade at 7:21 PM on April 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


    awesome!
    posted by jeffburdges at 3:40 AM on April 2, 2009


    Eliezer at Overcoming Bias gave a brief plug for this site. It has the advantages of being "simple" and "wikipedia-like," he says.
    posted by grobstein at 7:41 AM on April 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


    « Older UR END IZ NEER! Sign 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, &...  |  The British Expeditionary Forc... Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments