Teo Degas' Books & Decks

I read this book after finishing this book on apocalyptic predictions. I missed in it some insight into what makes people want to predict the future, date the end of the world or make predictions, prophetic or not. Future Babble gives you the answers! So it has turned out a perfect companion to the other one. Actually, I would recommend reading this one and then the other.

Although based on economical, demographical, political and social predictions in the last century or so, Future Babble is a brilliant book with a great work of research, and a sound historical and psychological approach to prediction making and the power of the expert in Society in general, in the contemporary world in particular. In a way, Future Babble is an X-rayed view of the sugar-coated magic ball that experts' predictions are.

 The goal of this book is not to mock particular individuals. Nor is it to scorn the category known as “experts.” It is to better understand the human desire to know what will happen, why that desire will never be satisfied, and how we can better prepare ourselves for the unknowable future" (Locations 69-71)

The book replies with specific details to questions like these:
> Why do we want and need predictions on anything?
 > Is anything predictable and subject to future predictions?
> Why do we trust some experts and not others?
> What does make an expert an expert and trustworthy for prediction making?
> Why are tides and eclipses predictable when predictions about so much else can be blown away by the flap of a butterfly’s wings?
> Why can we calculate insurance premiums, but not the world markets in 10 years time?
> Why experts whose predictions failed miserably consider them successful even the evidence is undeniable?
> Why experts whose predictions failed are constantly called to make more predictions?

> Why experts who make real successful predictions are rarely believed and those who have no clue are listened to, and unquestionably so?
> Why do experts fail in their predictions?
> Are there patterns in the Economy, Demography, History, Politics or human relationships that can explain the future in those areas?
>  If the future is unpredictable, doesn’t that mean all our planning and forecasting is pointless?
> Are experts really so bad?
> What distinguishes the mass of delusional experts from the few impressive ones? 

The book is well structured and discussed, without being boring or pretentious. Yet, all the examples are historically and statistically backed, and explanations are given to every single point in which you might find yourself asking, "but why?". The whys are the most important and interesting part of the book, and they are explained by a psychological approach. Among others, some psychological biases and heuristic involved in prediction making, justifying the failed predictions and forgetting about the expert's constant failures are: :
< Optimism Bias.
< Confirmation Bias.
< Status Quo Bias.
< Negativity Bias.
< Hindsight Bias.
< Rationalization Bias.
< The bias bias.

< Anchoring-and-adjustment Heuristic.
< Availability Heuristic.
< Representativeness Heuristic.
< Confidence Heuristic.
 
The point of departure needed to be scientifically sound. And it is sound. Gardner needed of an academic and scientific study to figure out the rate of failure among experts and how accurate expert's predictions are, and which characteristics do successful and unsuccessful prediction experts display. Otherwise, the whole discourse could have crumbled before even starting. Lucky Gardner had a brilliant stand on the research on this very subject by Philip Tetlock.

The book has many specific study cases, cases of international experts who predicted and failed miserably, of predictions that sound utterly ridiculous today but sold millions of books and were listed as the most important books of the decade at the time, and many small cases that showcase how and why people make predictions, and why they are bound to fail, or not.

I thought, well, it is great that Gardner sees the speck in the neighbour's eye, but not the log in his. So, how does he do (or how do we do) to see our own log? Gardner knows that all the biases he mentions affects us all, so how do we do to balance them?  The last chapter, The End, comes with the answers. Gardner does not focus on himself, of course, he shows how that can be done by using Alan Barnes' system on dealing with the documentation and research for the Privy Council Office of the Canadian Government. There are three key elements to balance your own biases: metacognition, information aggregation and humility. Not easy. Especially meta-cognition. Most people out there are not even conscious. Now, how did Gardner do that with this book? Did he do it himself?  Or was his editor or anybody else? Did he stop to ask himself, hey gorgeous me I am being biased here by any chance?  I would love to know that from the author himself, the specific method he applied to this specific book. Out of academic interest. 

This is not only a good book, it is very engaging  and intriguing, that gives answer after answer after answer. Besides, the book is well written, researched and referenced and has an impressive bibliography. Barely any typo in sight, as well. And Gardner is able to explain complex things in ways that any lay person can understand them. Kudos to him.

The Kindle Edition is flawless. However, if you read the book on Kindle for PC, the Lateral Index of  Contents does not display in it, while display perfectly in android devices.

There are other books on randomness and market prediction but this is the first I read on the subject and it is flawless.

Number one in my list of best books of 2015 so far.