Election forecasting gurus? Imaginary fortune tellers. They almost never catch us. Better statistical formulas or algorithms. Surely the monkeys do better than the gurus, who have predictive abilities superior even to those of foxes and hedgehogs. In an electoral campaign where illusions and fantasies are once again the masters, it will be good to recall the twenty-year work of Professor Philiph Tetlock, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, who, after carefully analyzing 82.361 forecasts of the a political guru, he had come to the conclusion that experts would be more effective if they gave random answers to the questions he asked them.
Danilo Taino wittily pointed this out in the "Corriere della sera" who also recalled that - according to Tetlock - he would have obtained better results than professional forecasters "a group of monkeys who had launched 82.361 darts at a target with questions written above them, darts would be evenly distributed.
The University of Pennsylvania professor adds that "experts know worse than statistical formulas and algorithms (and of course surveys too)". But he goes even further and argues that predicting depends on the way of thinking and that, among the various living species, "the hedgehog is less able to make predictions" because he has a self-referential vision that leads him to often make mistakes, even if when he guesses he does great.
The fox, on the other hand, does not have thoughts and behaviors unified by a vision, moves in response to situations and, according to Tetlock, "makes better predictions on average. “Although – notes Taino – never like those of monkeys” and therefore it would be good to take them into account. Especially in front of the TV.
