IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fufsci/v6y2024i1ne157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Long‐range subjective‐probability forecasts of slow‐motion variables in world politics: Exploring limits on expert judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Philip E. Tetlock
  • Christopher Karvetski
  • Ville A. Satopää
  • Kevin Chen

Abstract

Skeptics see long‐range geopolitical forecasting as quixotic. A more nuanced view is that although predictability tends to decline over time, its rate of descent is variable. The current study gives geopolitical forecasters a sporting chance by focusing on slow‐motion variables with low base rates of change. Analyses of 5, 10, and 25‐year cumulative‐risk judgments made in 1988 and 1997 revealed: (a) specialists beat generalists at predicting nuclear proliferation but not shifting nation‐state boundaries; (b) some counterfactual interventions—for example, Iran gets the bomb before 2022—boosted experts’ edge but others—for example, nuclear war before 2022—eliminated it; (c) accuracy fell faster on topics where expertise conferred no edge in shorter‐range forecasts. To accelerate scientific progress, we propose adversarial collaborations in which clashing schools of thought negotiate Bayesian reputational bets on divisive issues and use Lakatosian scorecards to incentivize the honoring of bets.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip E. Tetlock & Christopher Karvetski & Ville A. Satopää & Kevin Chen, 2024. "Long‐range subjective‐probability forecasts of slow‐motion variables in world politics: Exploring limits on expert judgment," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:6:y:2024:i:1:n:e157
    DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.157
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ffo2.157?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anil Gaba & Dana G. Popescu & Zhi Chen, 2019. "Assessing Uncertainty from Point Forecasts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 90-106, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:509-526 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Alison Hubbard Ashton & Robert H. Ashton, 1985. "Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(12), pages 1499-1508, December.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:4:p:369-381 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Franz Dietrich, 2010. "Bayesian group belief," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 595-626, October.
    6. Carless, Travis S. & Redus, Kenneth & Dryden, Rachel, 2021. "Estimating nuclear proliferation and security risks in emerging markets using Bayesian Belief Networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    7. Ville A. Satopää & Marat Salikhov & Philip E. Tetlock & Barbara Mellers, 2021. "Bias, Information, Noise: The BIN Model of Forecasting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7599-7618, December.
    8. Bas, Muhammet A. & Coe, Andrew J., 2016. "A Dynamic Theory of Nuclear Proliferation and Preventive War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(4), pages 655-685, October.
    9. Keynes, John Maynard, 1919. "The Economic Consequences of the Peace," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number keynes1919.
    10. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Makridakis, Spyros & Spiliotis, Evangelos & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Chen, Zhi & Gaba, Anil & Tsetlin, Ilia & Winkler, Robert L., 2022. "The M5 uncertainty competition: Results, findings and conclusions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1365-1385.
    2. Amélie Charles & Olivier Darné & Jae H. Kim, 2022. "Stock return predictability: Evaluation based on interval forecasts," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 363-385, April.
    3. Patrick Afflerbach & Christopher Dun & Henner Gimpel & Dominik Parak & Johannes Seyfried, 2021. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Wisdom of Crowds Phenomenon in Aggregating Expert Judgment," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(4), pages 329-348, August.
    4. Christopher W. Karvetski & David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2020. "Improving Probability Judgment in Intelligence Analysis: From Structured Analysis to Statistical Aggregation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1040-1057, May.
    5. Azar, Pablo D. & Micali, Silvio, 2018. "Computational principal agent problems," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    6. Rubio, F.J. & Steel, M.F.J., 2011. "Inference for grouped data with a truncated skew-Laplace distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 3218-3231, December.
    7. Jörg Bibow, 2018. "How Germany’s anti-Keynesianism has brought Europe to its knees," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 569-588, September.
    8. R de Fondeville & A C Davison, 2018. "High-dimensional peaks-over-threshold inference," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 105(3), pages 575-592.
    9. Domenico Piccolo & Rosaria Simone, 2019. "The class of cub models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(3), pages 389-435, September.
    10. Finn Lindgren, 2015. "Comments on: Comparing and selecting spatial predictors using local criteria," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 24(1), pages 35-44, March.
    11. Chuliá, Helena & Garrón, Ignacio & Uribe, Jorge M., 2024. "Daily growth at risk: Financial or real drivers? The answer is not always the same," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 762-776.
    12. Siemroth, Christoph, 2014. "Why prediction markets work : The role of information acquisition and endogenous weighting," Working Papers 14-02, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    13. Marianna Astore & Michele Fratianni, 2016. ""We can't pay": How Italy cancelled war debts after Lausanne," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 129, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    14. Massimo Di Matteo, 2016. "Un ricordo di Marcello de Cecco," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(118-119-1), pages 59-68.
    15. Laura Liu & Hyungsik Roger Moon & Frank Schorfheide, 2023. "Forecasting with a panel Tobit model," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 117-159, January.
    16. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    17. T. Gerasimos S. & V. Erotokritos & Т. Герасимос С. & В. Эротокритос, 2017. "Предварительный поведенческий подход в таргетированию реальных доходов // A Tentative Behavioral Approach to Real Income Targeting," Review of Business and Economics Studies // Review of Business and Economics Studies, Финансовый Университет // Financial University, vol. 5(1), pages 17-31.
    18. Peysakhovich, Alexander & Plagborg-Møller, Mikkel, 2012. "A note on proper scoring rules and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 357-361.
    19. Merkle, Edgar C. & Steyvers, Mark & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip E., 2017. "A neglected dimension of good forecasting judgment: The questions we choose also matter," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 817-832.
    20. Angelo Federico Arcelli & Reiner Stefano Masera & Giovanni Tria, 2021. "Da Versailles a Bretton Woods e ai giorni nostri: errori storici e modelli ancora attuali per un sistema monetario internazionale sostenibile (From Bretton Woods to our days: Historic mistakes and mod," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 74(296), pages 249-273.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:6:y:2024:i:1:n:e157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2573-5152 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.