< br />
MOSCOW, January 2, Tatyana Pichugina Numerologist David Mead predicts that in 2024 a cosmic body will collide with the Earth. Vanga and Nostradamus allegedly predicted a global catastrophe. Such predictions do not come true, but for some reason people believe in them. is looking into whether it is possible to more accurately predict the future.
What fate has in store
At the beginning of the 21st century, the collision of the Earth with the planet Nibiru was actively discussed in the media. The apocalypse was expected in May 2003. Then the end of the world was postponed to December 21, 2012 — according to the Mayan calendar. Astronomers have put a lot of effort into proving the absurdity of the prophecy: there is no Nibiru in the solar system. Even the director of the NASA Lunar Research Institute, David Morrison, gave a refutation.
Soon, the American “Christian numerologist” David Mead declared that the Earth would still collide with Planet X. He even named the date allegedly encrypted in the Bible — 23 September 2017. When nothing happened, the seer explained: he was misunderstood, the end of the world will come in seven years — in 2024.
“Vanga predicted very intriguing events for 2024,” writes the Bulgarian newspaper Standartnews. The prophetess foresaw that in the coming year the planet would be engulfed in catastrophic disasters: hurricanes, tornadoes, floods. A strong earthquake causing casualties will occur in the Pacific region. Russia will unite with India and China. In addition, the clairvoyant predicted a global conflict that would lead to a decrease in the Earth's population. These will be “terrorist attacks” and “biological weapons,” the publication specifies. A geopolitical crisis is coming, “economic power will transfer from the West to the East,” adds the British tabloid The Sun.
Vanga’s prophecies are spoken about every year — without citing any source. It is known that she left no diaries. Her words were recorded by her assistants, but they were never published in their entirety. Then where do these predictions come from? Did the soothsayer really see the future in such detail? Or are journalists just making it all up?
Expert error
In 2005, a book by American political scientist Philip Tetlock from Princeton University, “Expert Political Judgments. How Good Are They? How Do We Know It?” was published in the United States. The main conclusion: a group of experts predicts the future randomly. The chimpanzee throwing a dart had the same result.
Tetlock became interested in forecasting in the late 1980s. At that time, many believed that the world was on the verge of nuclear war. Is President Ronald Reagan delaying or bringing disaster closer? What will happen to the leadership of the USSR? Will young Politburo member Mikhail Gorbachev be able to take the place of leader? Tetlock asked these questions to the experts. There were many versions — from the onset of neo-Stalinism to the reform of socialism. And no one foresaw that the Soviet Union would collapse.
In 2002, American intelligence made a monumental mistake in assessing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Tetlock decided to find out the reason for the failure. For several years, with money from the intelligence communities, he held tournaments where groups of experts made predictions about political events. Over time, it turned out that about two percent of people make predictions better than others. The scientist called them superforecasters.
Superforecasters are not necessarily policy experts, says Tetlock. These could be teachers, businessmen — anyone. It is important that they know how to collect and analyze information, and avoid prejudices and cognitive distortions, such as neglect of scale. In addition, the researcher found that predictive abilities can be developed through psychological training. Moreover, working in a group under good management is especially effective.
In the 2015 book Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction, Tetlock and his co-author, journalist Dan Gardner, profile one of the world's top experts, Bill Fluck. He is 55 years old and retired. Answers hundreds of questions. Will any country leave the Eurozone next year? Will India or Brazil become permanent members of the UN Security Council in the next two years? How many more countries will announce cases of Ebola virus in the next eight months? Will North Korea conduct nuclear tests before the end of this year? All of Bill's answers are recorded, time-tested and surprisingly accurate.
Every day the media publishes different predictions. Corporations and authorities pay a lot of money for them, politicians, investors and voters rely on them when making decisions. Philip Tetlock believes that forecasts without assessing their validity are worthless, and he is confident that he has created an effective methodology that can be used. “Foresight is not a mysterious gift received at birth. It is the result of a special style of thinking, collecting information, and the ability to change one’s beliefs,” says the scientist.
Lessons from the pandemic
«Imagine that you are a politician. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, you must decide what to do, what risks you can take, what sacrifices people will agree to. You need to guess the reaction population. Who do you turn to for a forecast? Sociologists,» write members of The Forecasting Collaborative initiative, who decided to check how effective sociological forecasts are.
During the study, 120 groups of experts answered questions about changing prejudices, subjective feelings, violence, individualism, and political polarization. Forecasts for changes in the situation in the first year of the pandemic—2020—were used as a test. The results (according to the authors, unsatisfactory) were published in the journals Nature Human Behavior and American Psychologist. As it turned out, the predictions of experts differ little from the judgments of ordinary people. And sometimes even less accurate.
However, the authors made several useful observations. Firstly, an expert gives more accurate forecasts in his own field — the one he knows well. Secondly, a group of specialists from different disciplines copes with the task better. Finally, machine learning based on historical data provides some benefits.
Свежие комментарии