Strategy. Innovation. Brand.

Creativity

My Good Judgment

Who's the better forecaster?

Who’s the better forecaster?

We’re all familiar with the idea of placing a bet on a football match. You can bet on many different outcomes: which team will win; by how much; how many total goals will be scored on so on. With a large number of bettors, the aggregate prediction is often remarkably accurate. It’s what James Surowiecki calls The Wisdom of Crowds.

Prediction markets aim to do the same thing but broaden the scope. Instead of betting on sports, they bet on political or economic or natural events. For instance, What’s the probability that: Greece will exit the Euro in 2015; or that nuclear weapons will be used in the India/Pakistan conflict before 2018; or that Miami will have more than 100 flood days by 2020?

The forecasting questions are quite precise and always bounded by a time limit. There should be no question whether the event happens or not. In other words, we can actually judge how accurate the forecasts are.

Why is judging so important? As Philip Tetlock pointed out in Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, we traditionally don’t measure the accuracy of expert political predictions. Pundits make predictions and nobody checks them. Indeed, Tetlock argues that most pundits make predictions as a way to advertise their consulting businesses. The bolder the prediction, the more powerful the ad.

When Tetlock actually measured the accuracy of expert political predictions, he discovered they were essentially useless. Tetlock writes, “The results were startling. The average expert did only slightly better than random guessing.” Remember that the next time you read an expert prediction.

You may remember that I wrote about a prediction market – InTrade – during the 2012 elections in the United States. Based in Ireland, InTrade allowed people all over the world to place bets on who would win the presidential election, as well as various Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional elections. InTrade’s electoral predictions were remarkably accurate. (It did less well in predicting Supreme Court decisions).

Unfortunately, the U.S. government saw InTrade as a form of online gambling. As such, it needed to be tightly regulated or perhaps even suppressed. It’s a complicated story — and may have involved “financial irregularities” on InTrade’s part — but, in 2013, InTrade decided to close its doors.

So, how can we use prediction markets in the United States? In its wisdom, another agency of the federal government, the Intelligence Advanced Reesarch Projects Activity (IARPA), started a prediction tournament called Aggregative Contingent Estimation (ACE). IARPA/ACE has run a prediction tournament for the past three years. Various teams – mainly from academic institutions – participate for the honor of being named the most accurate forecaster.

And who wins these tournaments? A team called The Good Judgment Project (GJP) put together by none other than Philip Tetlock. GJP selects several thousand volunteers, gives them some training on how to make forecasts, and asks them to forecast the several hundred questions included in the IARPA/ACE tournament.

The Good Judgment project wins the tournament consistently. They must be doing something right. And who is the newest forecaster on the Good Judgment team? Well… with all due modesty, it’s me.

To say the least, I’m excited to participate – and I expect to write about my experiences over the coming months. I can predict with 70% confidence that I won’t be a world class forecaster in the first go round. But I may just learn a thing or two and improve my accuracy over time. Wish me luck.

How To Have A Good Idea – Part 1

Idea generator.

We often think that good ideas are random events. We might say, for instance, that “the idea just popped into my head” or it “just occurred to me.” We may convince ourselves that we’re not the authors of our own ideas. They just happen.

But having a good idea is really no different than any other skill. The more we practice, the better we become. We can train ourselves to create more ideas. The more ideas we produce, the more chance we have of producing good ones. As Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has remarked, “Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.”

So how do you create ideas and, especially, how do you create good ones? The first step is to pay attention. We all have good ideas from time to time. Pay attention to what you’re doing when you have a good idea. Then do more of that.

With that thought in mind, I’ve asked the students in several editions of my Critical Thinking class what they were doing the last time they had a good idea. Here’s a list, in no particular order.

Taking a walk – I haven’t kept precise count but this is certainly one of the most frequently mentioned activities. It’s also my favorite. Whenever I need a good idea, I go for a walk.

Out for a run – like walking, only faster.

Going for a drive – also fairly popular and may be related to highway hypnosis.

Taking a shower – another frequent one.

Reading – this one comes up fairly often, especially reading in bed before falling asleep. As I’ve noted before, sleepy people seem more creative.

Meditation – most of my students don’t meditate but the ones who do often mention it as a time when they get good ideas.

On the subway or bus, commuting – a routine action repeated most every business day; apparently the mind wanders.

On the elevator – this was a student from New York where I gather they take long elevator rides.

Lifting weights at the gym – I suspect that System 1 is lifting the weights while System 2 is rummaging around in more interesting topics.

Dreaming – this comes up occasionally. As one student put it, “I had a fabulous idea for work and had to wake up and write it down.”

Listening to others and listening to colleagues – nobody has told me that they have a good idea when talking. A number of students have told me the ideas come when they’re listening.

Mowing the lawn – it’s a good time to let your mind wander.

Over a cup of coffee in the quiet morning before the kids get up – what a delicious time.

Sitting on the couch talking and strategizing the next day’s plan with my wife – another lovely moment.

I’m struck by how many of the idea-generating activities involve motion. We’re walking or running or driving the car or riding the subway. We’re moving through space and there’s a lot to stimulate our System 1. Yet we don’t have to do much consciously; our System 2 is free to wander. We’re daydreaming but we don’t realize it.

Many of the activities find us alone – like driving or meditating – or alone in a crowd – like riding the subway. We seem to need some stimulus but we also need to withdraw into a quiet, inner space.

Not many students have mentioned having good ideas while in a meeting. But when they do, they often mention the alone-in-a-crowd experience. They may not know many people in the meeting or they’ve mentally checked out for a while. There’s some stimulus but the mind is wandering.

It occurs to me that most of these activities are a form of meditation. We don’t think of it as such but we’re occupying System 1 with routine activities – not unlike chanting a mantra – and allowing System 2 to wander. We don’t think of ourselves as a nation of meditators but perhaps we are.

So, how about it? What were you doing the last time you had a good idea?

Are You The Boss Of You?

I am the master of my fate. Aren't I?

I am the master of my fate. Aren’t I?

Like so many teenagers, I once believed that “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” I could take control, think for myself, and guide my own destiny.

It’s a wonderful thought and I really want to believe it’s true. But I keep finding more and more hidden persuaders that manipulate our thinking in unseen ways. In some cases, we manipulate ourselves by mis-framing a situation. In other cases, other people do the work for us.

Consider these situations and ask yourself: Are you the boss of you?

  • When you eat potato chips, are you thinking for yourself? Or is some canny food scientist manipulating you by steering you towards your bliss point?
  • When you play the slot machines, are you deciding how much to spend or is a sophisticated algorithm dispensing just enough winnings to keep you hooked? Are you being addicted in the machine zone?
  • When you don’t eat fish for 20 years, is it because you’re allergic or did you just never think to test your own assumptions? Did you frame yourself?
  • When you vote for a political candidate, is it because you have carefully considered all the issues and chosen the best candidate or because a cynical communications expert has got your goat with attributed belittlement?
  • When you vote for stronger anti-crime laws, is it because you think they’ll actually work or are you succumbing to the vividness availability bias? (Vivid images of spectacular crimes are readily available to your memory so you vastly over-estimate their frequency).
  • When you buy something is it because you need it or because you want it? Perhaps you’re being manipulated by Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, the founder of public relations. Or perhaps you’ve been brandwashed.

In The Century of the Self, a British video documentary, Adam Curtis argues that we were hopelessly manipulated in the 20th century by slick followers of Freud who invented public relations. Of course, video is our most emotional and least logical medium. So perhaps Curtis is manipulating us to believe that we’ve been manipulated. It’s food for thought.

(The Century of the Self consists of four one-hour documentaries produced for the BBC. You can watch the first one, Happiness Machines, by clicking here).

The Future of 3D Printing (and Elliot)

table 1I don’t know if 3D printing will change the world, but I do know that it’s helping Elliot start up a new business in Berlin.

Elliot’s a good designer. He’s designed everything from 3D videos to websites to room dividers to packaging. But he has a special knack for furniture – especially furniture designed on a computer.

Using 3D software Elliot designed the table in the photos. He then built one, using a numerical controls (NC) laser to cut the wood and a 3D printer to create the red resin joints. (You can get them in any color you want).

The design incorporates both additive and subtractive manufacturing. Elliot creates the tabletop by cutting wood away – it’s subtractive. He creates the joints in a 3D printer by adding one layer of resin on top of another repetitively.

Elliot has now rented a studio in Berlin and is starting up a furniture design and manufacturing business, under the brand name Studio Elliot White. None of this would have been possible without 3D design software and printers.

So, is Elliot a harbinger of things to come? Well, maybe. A few days ago the New York Times had a lively discussion on the topic in table 2its Room For Debate section. Here are some highlights along with my ruminations.

Big picture – the grand vision has been that we will all have 3D printers in our homes. We could order Elliot’s table (or bench or chair) and he would simply send us the design files for us to print at home. That seems unlikely, at least in the near term. Home printers just don’t produce the necessary quality.

Future schlock – Amazon recently opened its 3D printing store. You can create your own products. Unfortunately, most of it is schlock – like a 3D printed plastic dog bone. Even with such simple products, you don’t get to print it yourself. Amazon prints it and ships it to you.

Jet engine parts – some analysts suggest that 3D printing will always be low quality because of inherent weaknesses in additive technology. But General Electric has figured out how to print fuel nozzles for jet engines by printing layers of metal. By doing so, they reduce costs and lead times while improving quality.

table 3Clothes – I wouldn’t have thought of printing clothes but start-up companies are pushing the trend. Indeed, the US Army seems to think that it can clothe soldiers in high-tech printed uniforms for greater comfort and safety. And, yes, there is even a range of 3D printed bikinis.

Food – yes, it’s possible to print food. I was heartened to learn that one of the first applications is to print chocolate onto other foods.

Guns – yep, printable guns are here. And here. They’re cheap and undetectable. But don’t worry. They can only fire a few bullets before they break.

Manufacturing – could 3D printing return manufacturing to advanced countries? Maybe. As one Room For Debate writer noted, manufacturing productivity has risen much more quickly than overall business productivity. Meanwhile, the cost of labor in China is rising at 10 to 15% per year. If these trends continue, on-shoring makes a lot more sense.

So, what’s the future? Well, once again, I think we’re caught in the hype cycle. The initial hype was intense. Now there’s a bit of disappointment as reality seeps in. But that’s usually followed by a rising productivity curve as entrepreneurs sort out which technologies fit which markets. I’m generally optimistic. Now … does anyone want to buy a table?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Media and Empty Calories

I'm at my bliss point.

I’m at my bliss point.

Can’t stop eating those potato chips? Blame it on the bliss point.

On a graph, the bliss point looks like an upside-down U. Think of it as a crave curve. At the top of the curve, the food you’re eating provides maximum bliss and minimum warning. You crave it and simply want more. If you move past the top of the curve, however, the food starts to alert your brain that you’ve eaten enough. You stop eating.

Being good marketers, food engineers want you to eat more. They aim to hit the top of the crave curve. As it happens, “…big, distinct flavors [tend] to overwhelm the brain, which responds by depressing your desire to have more.” So food engineers blend flavors to get just the right bliss balance that will keep you consuming.

As with food, so with slot machines. As the anthropologist Natasha Dow Schüll points out, slot machine designers aim for a mechanical version of the bliss point called the “machine zone”.

Once players enter the machine zone, their “…worries, social demands, and even bodily awareness fade away. … gambling addicts play not to win but simply to keep playing as long as possible….” Like food engineering, game engineering aims to keep you going … just one more nibble or one more pull on the slot machine’s arm.

I wonder if social media doesn’t work the same way. It’s simple, it’s repetitive, and it’s enjoyable. Just one more peek … it’s an innocent pastime, isn’t it? It can’t really hurt anything, can it?

I took a short break just a moment ago and checked my social media. What did I learn? Well, I found out what a former colleague had for lunch today in Minneapolis. Did I really want to know that? No … but think of what I might have learned. I might have found that several people “liked” my latest article. I might have learned that a professional association wants to hire me for a keynote speech. I might have discovered that Tilda Swinton wants to invite me to lunch. Oh, the possibilities.

There’s an old joke that second marriages are the triumph of hope over knowledge. The same is true for social media. The reality is that most of what we discover on social media is rather boring. But maybe … just maybe … something interesting has happened. We have to check. It’s like being in the machine zone. Our worries and social obligations just fade away.

And when something interesting does happen, we get a little reward, just like a slot machine. In reality, the reward never equals the investment. But, as we bask in the glow of the reward, we forget that. We’re in the zone. We can’t break away. In fact, we don’t even want to break away.

My Mom used to say that it’s easier to avoid temptation than to resist it. I’ve learned not to stock potato chips in the house. I’ve learned not to frequent gaming dens. Maybe it’s time to put the social media away, too.

My Social Media

YouTube Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Newsletter Signup
Archives