I started a project called “the illusion of predictability” right at the beginning of my PhD. It seemed like an interesting idea. It was about questioning the possibility of using a widely featured statistical tool in economics to improve decision making and prediction; it was about merging academia with reality.
I really believed I was onto something.
I teamed up with a fellow believer, an exceptional psychologist. We used real and knowledgeable people in our experiments. They contributed voluntarily to our quest. It was both exciting and terrifying. The results were polarized and so were the comments.
I would like to thank once again to all the contributors.
My previous post featured some very insightful reactions to the project. Below are some more. Also, I list at the end of this post the main article and the comment articles that followed it, along with our reply to them.
Several recent discussions about our project in the blogosphere:
- Economist’s view blog
- Andrew Gelman’s statistics blog
- INET economics blog
- Naked Capitalism blog
- Future Perfect blog
- Weakonomics blog
As mentioned above, now several scientists also have commented on the project through several reply papers published alongside the main article. Then we wrote our own replies to their commentaries. Here are all the discussion papers:
The main article can be found HERE
Scott Armstrong’s comments about the project can be found HERE
Keith Ord’s comments on the project can be found HERE
Nassim Taleb and Daniel Goldstein’s comments can be found HERE
Stephen Ziliak’s comments can be found HERE
Our reply to comments can be found HERE