
On the difficulty of predicting the future (2001) [pdf] - aleyan
https://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/2382/2001-04-12%20To%20George%20W%20Bush%20et%20al%20re%20Predicting%20the%20Future.pdf
======
nabla9
Predicting the future and future forecasting are different things.

There are many forecasting techniques available. The goal is not see into the
future, but to see the likely distribution of outcomes that come from
decisions and sequence of future decisions.

Rumsfeld & Co had idea of what they wanted to happen, and then they twisted
everything to justify it. That's just being an idiot. Rudimentary expert-
opinion forecasting would have helped. Expert opinion was specially avoided or
ignored.

~~~
bkohlmann
Philip Tetlock in his masterwork Superforecasting does a great job of showing
“expert” forecasting is no better than reasonably informed “amateurs.” A must
read.

~~~
tedsanders
As someone who has spent years trading in forecasting tournaments, I worry
this characterization might be misinterpreted as saying know nothingism is
correct and we should give up on predicting the future. (Not that you meant it
that way, of course.)

It's true that "amateurs" can consistently beat "experts". But not all
amateurs - only some. This suggests to me there is true prediction expertise,
but our system that attaches labels of "expert" does not select for it.

Prediction is very much a skill and some people are very much better than
others. We just don't regularly measure or select for it explicitly.

~~~
ssivark
What about the complaint/criticism that Brier scores (which Tetlock uses to
score forecasters) do not weight the severity/importance of the result eg:
forecasting the outcome of a war and forecasting the winner of the super bowl
are weighted equally.

~~~
tedsanders
Totally valid criticism. I think nuances like these were what Tetlock had
toughest time articulating in Superforecasting and his public interviews. He
chose to emphasize the big, clear points rather than subtler, more complicated
issues like how questions were chosen and how they should be compared or
weighted.

------
melling
Unknown unknowns are definitely difficult to predict.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns)

~~~
hopelessgoat
Psychoanalytic philosopher Slavoj Žižek says that beyond these three
categories there is a fourth, the unknown known, that which we intentionally
refuse to acknowledge that we know: "If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers
in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the
threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib
scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed
beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even
though they form the background of our public values."

~~~
tsunamifury
I believe in that speech Žižek was just referring to assumptions -- i.e. the
things we don't know we assumed, but are acting on subconsciously. The famous
slide of how to invade Iraq made the invasion look simple and definable -- but
in fact that assumption proved very wrong.

~~~
opportune
" just referring to assumptions -- i.e. the things we don't know we assumed,
but are acting on subconsciously"

This is much, much more than "just assumption" to Zizek. In fact, this is what
he refers to as ideology and it's basically the main subject he is known for

~~~
tsunamifury
Sure, assumptions are shorthand ideology for the brain.

------
tgb29
By 2010, the administration I wrote this memo for would totally squander
America's opportunity to lead the free world. Not learning from the US-MX war
of 1840s or the Vietnam war of 1960s, we embarked on a costly and disastrous
military initiative in Iraq. We destroyed privacy with the Patriot Act and
crashed the global economy in 2008.

~~~
anonu
When something bad happens - take a plane crash for example - its never just
one thing you can point to and say that was 100% to blame. There's always a
series of events that compound together - decisions and shortcuts made years
or decades before a catastrophe occurs that all work up to the event.

I could just as easily blame the British for the Balfour declaration... which
led to the current Mideast strife - which led to AlQaeda causing 9/11 which
lead to the military interventions in Iraq.

My point is - its too facile to blame the Bush administration for everything.
Look further back...

~~~
Loughla
That sort of feels like trying to justify poor choices via a belief in magical
predetermination to me, though.

Al Qaeda being caused by whatever they were caused by has absolutely no
bearing on the actual decisions made after their attacks on 9/11.

9/11 happening doesn't determine what the outcome of 9/11 will be in terms of
policy response.

The response of the Bush administration was important, and led to many (I
suspect intentional) negative outcomes for the American public in general.

To just wave it away and say - it comes from earlier in history - strikes me
as a bad idea at best, and a way to avoid responsibility for your actions at
worst.

------
tabtab
"Predictificationism has lots of difficultants."

That prez made words too long, the next spoke them too fast; now we got one
that makes them too short.

------
nilskidoo
"For if there is a god it is the future. None can define it while many presume
to speak on its behalf. All wish for it to deliver unto them, yet within it
lies the destruction of every last one of us." \- Richard Caldwell

------
paulpauper
i think a case can be made for a new, permanent status quo: America on top
followed by China. Continued world peace. Continued dominance of US dollar.
Contused low inflation in the US, continued tech innovation, continued
dominance of Facebook, Amazon, and Google, etc.

