By MARSHA MERCER
We’re on the cusp of
a new year, so it must be prediction season, that magical time when we’re all
authorities on the future.
As predictions for
2016 begin to flow, the urge seems irresistible to bloviate about the presidential
election even though no one – and I mean no
one – knows for sure what will happen.
Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio will be the Republican presidential nominee, and he will tap South
Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley as his running mate, proclaims Fortune, which also
predicts Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will pick Sen. Tim
Kaine of Virginia as her veep.
Really? It’s not that
those are bad guesses. Rubio is the hope of many Republicans who want to dump
Trump, and Haley said she’ll consider joining the GOP ticket if asked. Clinton
is, well, Clinton, and Kaine represents a swing state that could be crucial.
But such scenarios assume
a logical electorate – and when did the 2016 campaign become logical?
Only a year ago, as 2015
dawned and predictions proliferated, no one saw Hurricane Donald coming. Trump didn’t
even jump into the race until June, although it seems he’s been in forever.
We don’t know what we
don’t know about 2016.
But here’s why
predictions are both beauty and beast: They exist in a judgment-free zone. In
our talky age, anyone who speaks with confidence can predict with impunity.
A year ago, the writer
of a predictions piece in the British newspaper the Telegraph ticked through
the list of Democratic and Republican contenders and confided to his readers that
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is “my personal favourite to win the
nomination and the White House – although I’m probably in a minority of two in
that opinion (me and Mr. Huckabee).”
OK, but why?
In its “The World in
2016” issue, The Economist confidently declares, “Hillary Clinton will be the
candidate to beat in the race for the White House,” and “someone like” Rubio will
win the GOP’s nod. But Clinton will probably eke out a victory in November,
unless other factors intervene, the reporter opines. With that much wiggle
room, it’s hard to be wrong.
The art of looking ahead apparently approves of alliteration. The
Economist says 2016 “can be summed up in three words: woes, women and wins.” The
primary season will be “short and sharp.” The campaign: “cruel, costly and
close.”
Most predictions are
like those lists of what’s In and Out – clever opinion. Or the vague horoscopes
in the morning paper -- fun but hardly definitive.
Fortunately, some
thoughtful people are weighing in. As
2015 ends, political scientist Larry Sabato and his colleagues at the
University of Virginia’s Center for Politics still rate the general election “a
coin flip,” based on statistics and research. That’s good enough for me. I
don’t need to declare an election before the voting even starts.
In two decades of
studying predictions, professor Philip E. Tetlock found that a dart-throwing
chimp has nearly as much accuracy in forecasting the future as so-called experts
in politics, economics and journalism.
Tetlock’s 2005 book
-- “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” – deflated a
lot of hot air balloons. He evaluated the accuracy of 82,361 forecasts and
found that about 15 percent of the things the experts dismissed as having
little or no chance of occurring actually did happen. Of the things the experts
claimed surely would happen, about 27 percent did not.
Tetlock, who teaches psychology
and management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, now says there
are ways to improve our forecasting abilities so we can beat the chimp.
His new book,
“Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction,” written with journalist
Dan Gardner, includes such techniques as keeping an open mind and gathering
facts.
We may always wish
for experts, super or not. In 1980, Wharton professor J. Scott Armstrong
invented the “seersucker theory.” After reviewing a dozen studies about experts
and their advice, Armstrong proposed: “No matter how much evidence exists that
seers do not exist, suckers will pay for the existence of seers.”
When you see predictions
about 2016, think of the dart-throwing chimp -- and don’t be a seer-sucker.
© 2015 Marsha Mercer.
All rights reserved.
30
