If you'll indulge me briefly I posted a Substack Note on a similar topic which I think applies here:
There seems to be little downside for publicly making predictions regardless of how good they are as long as you keep track of the times you were right. Failing that, track the times that you were almost right. Failing that, have semi-plausible excuses for why you were wrong
Honestly, there doesn’t seem to be any downside as long as you make enough public predictions.
Eventually the point of predictions and silly bets like this are not to help anyone except the person who's doing all of the blustering and woe to those who have disengaged their common sense and critical thinking facilities.
Aug 14, 2023·edited Aug 14, 2023Liked by Dave Karpf
You are absolutely right, and it's created a spin-off into the weird world of super-forecasting. The tldr version is that if you read widely, do careful, precise research, and then make finely calibrated percentage-based predictions (no numbers rounded up to multiples of ten) you will perform better than the likes of Srinivasan.
Trouble is, despite the mystique that has attracted DARPA and various spooks, that's not very difficult to achieve. And 'super-forecasters' are still only right some of the time.
Dunning-Kruger also kicks in. Anyone who self-identifies as a 'super-forecaster' is probably not. Looking at you, Sebastian Gorka.
The fact is that as long as you stay on message and keep a high volume of messages/posts flowing supporting a coherent narrative you can talk over your detractors and achieve your goals. Every time someone pipes up and disproves one of your points you just go "ah, well, nevertheless" and keep going. What Sacks, Srinivasan, and Musk along with the ex-president have realized is that tech media and media of all types under the current format is mechanically incapable of accountability. The need to move on to the next story overrides everything.
I think that's right, but that it's more a function of money + megaphone than staying on message + content volume. Trump, for instance, was terrible at message discipline. But if you have a large megaphone, tons of money, and well-buffered structural power, then that's one hell of a suit of armor.
He was and is terrible at message discipline in the sense that his speeches and statements were often barely coherent, but he had an ur-message from the very beginning that pushed him way ahead of the rest of the GOP field. "America was once white/industrial/great and is now brown/foreign/deindustrialized/a laughing stock - I will reset it". He genuinely believes that, and it turned out to be a more compelling message than anyone thought.
I agree he’s a fool but he’s also a grifter because everyone in 2023 is. He’s trying to pump bitcoin. Everything he does is trying to pump bitcoin.
If you'll indulge me briefly I posted a Substack Note on a similar topic which I think applies here:
There seems to be little downside for publicly making predictions regardless of how good they are as long as you keep track of the times you were right. Failing that, track the times that you were almost right. Failing that, have semi-plausible excuses for why you were wrong
Honestly, there doesn’t seem to be any downside as long as you make enough public predictions.
Eventually the point of predictions and silly bets like this are not to help anyone except the person who's doing all of the blustering and woe to those who have disengaged their common sense and critical thinking facilities.
You are absolutely right, and it's created a spin-off into the weird world of super-forecasting. The tldr version is that if you read widely, do careful, precise research, and then make finely calibrated percentage-based predictions (no numbers rounded up to multiples of ten) you will perform better than the likes of Srinivasan.
Trouble is, despite the mystique that has attracted DARPA and various spooks, that's not very difficult to achieve. And 'super-forecasters' are still only right some of the time.
Dunning-Kruger also kicks in. Anyone who self-identifies as a 'super-forecaster' is probably not. Looking at you, Sebastian Gorka.
The fact is that as long as you stay on message and keep a high volume of messages/posts flowing supporting a coherent narrative you can talk over your detractors and achieve your goals. Every time someone pipes up and disproves one of your points you just go "ah, well, nevertheless" and keep going. What Sacks, Srinivasan, and Musk along with the ex-president have realized is that tech media and media of all types under the current format is mechanically incapable of accountability. The need to move on to the next story overrides everything.
I think that's right, but that it's more a function of money + megaphone than staying on message + content volume. Trump, for instance, was terrible at message discipline. But if you have a large megaphone, tons of money, and well-buffered structural power, then that's one hell of a suit of armor.
He was and is terrible at message discipline in the sense that his speeches and statements were often barely coherent, but he had an ur-message from the very beginning that pushed him way ahead of the rest of the GOP field. "America was once white/industrial/great and is now brown/foreign/deindustrialized/a laughing stock - I will reset it". He genuinely believes that, and it turned out to be a more compelling message than anyone thought.