Judging Judgment

Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de

doi:10.1080/08913811.2010.541686

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even among those who are convinced the old scouts are the best scouts, there is renewed attention to how to evaluate political judgment such that it uses more data, keeps better track of mistakes, and integrates multiple estimates of outcomes . Many others have begun researching ways to bring together better ideas in the generation of forecasts, better ideas that incorporate accountability, and multiple methodologies for making predictions (Bueno de Mesquita ; Tetlock ; Clauset and Woodard ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from the Past and Stepping into the Future: Toward a New Generation of Conflict Prediction

Ward

Metternich²,

Dorff

et al. 2013

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing political forecasting models not only increases the ability of political scientists to inform public policy decisions, but is also relevant for scientific advancement. This article argues for and demonstrates the utility of creating forecasting models for predicting political conflicts in a diverse range of country settings. Apart from the benefit of making actual predictions, we argue that predictive heuristics are one gold standard of model development in the field of conflict studies. As such, they shed light on an array of important components of the political science literature on conflict dynamics. We develop and present conflict predictions that have been highly accurate for past and subsequent events, exhibiting few false-negative and false-positive categorizations. Our predictions are made at the monthly level for 6-month periods into the future, taking into account the social-spatial context of each individual country. The model has a high degree of accuracy in reproducing historical data measured monthly over the past 10 years and has approximately equal accuracy in making forecasts. Thus, forecasting in political science is increasingly accurate. At the same time, by providing a gold standard that separates model construction from model evaluation, we can defeat observational research designs and use true prediction as a way to evaluate theories. We suggest that progress in the modeling of International Studies Review (2013) 15, 473-490 conflict research depends on the use of prediction as a gold standard of heuristic evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from the Past and Stepping into the Future: Toward a New Generation of Conflict Prediction

Ward

Metternich²,

Dorff

et al. 2013

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Expertise is understood to be specialist knowledge acquired by education and experience (Bromme, Rambow, and Nückles 2001;Dingwall and Lewis 1983). In more detail expertise of an individual is defined by: experience, accreditation, peer-identification, reliability (between and within expert), factual knowledge and the availability of subject matter experts (Shanteau and Johnson 2004;Shanteau et al 2003;Bueno de Mesquita 2010;Cooke 1991;Bontis 2001;Smith, Shanteau, and Johnson 2004). 'Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural and political factors' (Slovic 1999).…”

Section: The Subjectivity Of Security Risk Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biases in security risk management: Do security professionals follow prospect theory in their decisions?

Wit

Pieters

Jansen³

et al. 2021

Journal of Integrated Security and Safety Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Security professionals play a decisive role in security risk decision making, with important implications for security in organisations and society. Because of this subjective input in security understanding possible biases in this process is paramount. In this paper, well known biases as observed and described in prospect theory are studied in individual security risk decision making by security professionals. To this end, we distributed a questionnaire among security professionals including both original dilemmas from prospect theory and dilemmas adapted to the context of incident prevention. It was hypothesised that security professionals dealing with risks and decision making under risk on an almost daily basis would or should be less vulnerable to decision biases involving risks, in particular when framed in terms of incident prevention. The results show that security professionals are vulnerable to decision biases at the same scale as lay people, but some biases are weaker when decision problems are framed in terms of security as opposed to monetary gains and losses. Of the individual characteristics defining experience, only the general education level observably affects vulnerability for biases in security decision making in this study. A higher general education level leads to a significantly higher vulnerability to decision biases. By highlighting the vulnerability of security professionals to decision biases, this study contributes essential awareness and knowledge for improved decision making, for example by different representation of probabilities and uncertainty.

show abstract

“…This is essential for effective policy making.’ A brief note should also be devoted to the scholar who claims to have found the right formula for predicting the occurrence of future events. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2010) not only asserts that game theory is an accurate predictive tool, but in his Predictioneer’s Game (Bueno de Mesquita, 2009), maintains that he can provide the analytic instruments ‘to see and shape the future’, as the subtitle of the book clearly puts it.…”

Section: Naturalism and Scientismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics is too important to be left to political scientists: A critique of the theory–policy nexus in International Relations

Zambernardi

2015

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Albeit fashionable in some academic circles, the idea that International Relations theory should influence practice is based on the problematic view that scholars allegedly have a privileged epistemological standpoint making them more qualified than laymen and decision-makers alike to understand how international politics works. The present article tries to show why this assumption is mistaken and suggests that the so-called theory-practice gap should not be bridged. The fact that International Relations theory should not directly influence policy does not mean, however, that students of international politics are of no political use. Their work can be justified not in terms of the direct application of their findings, but rather by virtue of its indirect and unintended consequences on policymaking. Relying on a liberal view of political knowledge, the article claims that the role of International Relations scholars is not to suggest to policymakers what action to take, but rather to prevent foreign policy being formulated in the absence of rival theoretical conclusions.they that have no Science, are in better, and nobler condition with their naturall Prudence; than men, that by mis-reasoning, or by trusting them that reason wrong, fall upon false and absurd generall rules. For ignorance of causes, and of rules, does not set men so farre out of their way,

show abstract

Judging Judgment

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Learning from the Past and Stepping into the Future: Toward a New Generation of Conflict Prediction

Learning from the Past and Stepping into the Future: Toward a New Generation of Conflict Prediction

Biases in security risk management: Do security professionals follow prospect theory in their decisions?

Politics is too important to be left to political scientists: A critique of the theory–policy nexus in International Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About