(no subject)

[randomness]

People who make predictions which later turn out to be completely wrong destroy their credibility, at least with me.

I'm not sure why this is. We're all wrong sometimes, aren't we?

Nonetheless, it's what happens. Personally, I find the more confident they were at the beginning, the less I respect them later. But many people seem to have made good livings of appearing sure of themselves, and it seems like those livings are dependent on never admitting that they were ever wrong, or showing a bit of doubt.

Comments

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

My predictions tend to be fairly pessimistic, so I'm frequently delighted to be wrong.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Oh, people have managed to destroy their credibility with pessimistic predictions, too.

I think that you make it clear that other outcomes exist.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

Hrm.....does it depend on how sure they are of their predictions? Is there a difference for you if the prediction is made by arrogantly saying "I bet this will happen because of that" as opposed to saying "I think this will happen because of that"?

For me it destroys their "prediction credibility" (or at least makes me more cautious of it) but not necessarily their "factual credibility"....your post makes it sound like all types of credibility are destroyed, is that the case?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I think their "factual credibility" takes a hit also, because I begin to wonder about their judgement in general.

But yes, it has a lot to do with how sure they are about their predictions. Arrogance has a lot to do with it.

[dpolicar]

Well, if someone interviews or consults you, what they pretty much want to hear is "This is the outcome to bank on." To the degree that you say to them "Gee, anything could happen!" they're unlikely to interview or consult you again.

But yeah, I share your attitude towards supposed certainty.

I was convinced that Bush would win the 2004 election by pulling bin Laden out of a hat in late October. But I didn't mention the fact to many people.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Clearly, this is why William Kristol landed a job as a columnist for the New York Times.

From http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/re-reading-kris.html#more:

"I have a bunch of books in my Ptown shack, remnants of summer reading from years gone by and I stumbled across a classic yesterday: "The War Over Iraq" by Lawrence Kaplan and Bill Kristol. It's an Encounter book from 2002/2003 before the invasion, and Kristol should hope it's out of print. Reading it years later, its tone and content are shockingly off-base, and most of its core assertions and arguments categorically refuted by history. In fact, it would be very hard to think of a piece of analysis so riddled with misconceptions and errors and so self-evidently wrong in almost every respect only five years later. For errors this huge, of course, and a tenacious refusal to admit them and account for them, is what gives a writer a prestigious perch at the New York Times."

Sully rants some more about how Kristol has never owned up in any way to his mistakes, but you get the drift.