• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Another Study Finds Social Scientists Are No Better at Forecasting Than Laymen

by Noah Carl
4 November 2022 9:00 AM

Whether we should defer to ‘experts’ was a major theme of the pandemic.

Back in July, I wrote about a study that looked at ‘expert’ predictions and found them wanting. The authors asked both social scientists and laymen to predict the size and direction of social change in the U.S. over a 6-month period. Overall, the former group did no better than the latter – they were slightly more accurate in some domains, and slightly less accurate in others.

A new study (which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed) carried out a similar exercise, and reached roughly the same conclusion.

Igor Grossman and colleagues invited social scientists to participate in two forecasting tournaments that would take place between May 2020 and April 2021 – the second six months after the first. Participants entered in teams, and were asked to forecast social change in 12 different domains.

All teams were given several years worth of historical data for each domain, which they could use to hone their forecasts. They were also given feedback at the six month mark (i.e., just prior to the second tournament).

The researchers judged teams’ predictions against two alternative benchmarks: the average forecasts from a sample of laymen; and the best-performing of three simple models (a historical average, a linear trend, and a random walk). Recall that another recent study found social scientist can’t predict better than simple models.

Grossman and colleagues’ main result is shown in the chart below. Each coloured symbol shows the average forecasting error for ‘experts’, laymen and simple models, respectively (the further to the right, greater the error and the less accurate the forecast).

Average forecasting error in 12 different domains for ‘experts’, laymen and simple models.

Although the dark blue circles (representing the ‘experts’) were slightly further to the left than the orange triangles (representing the laymen) in most domains, the differences were small and not statistically significant – as indicated by the overlapping confidence intervals. What’s more, the light blue squares (representing the simple models) were even further to the left.

In other words: the ‘experts’ didn’t do significantly better than the laymen, and they did marginally worse than the simple models.

The researchers proceeded to analyse predictors of forecasting accuracy among the teams of social scientists. They found that teams whose forecasts were data-driven did better than those that relied purely on theory. Other predictors of accuracy included: having prior experience of forecasting tournaments, and utilising simple rather than complex models.

Why did the ‘experts’ fare so poorly? Grossman and colleagues give several possible reasons: lack of adequate incentives; social scientists are used to dealing with small effects that manifest under controlled condition; they’re used to dealing with individuals and groups, not whole societies; and most social scientists aren’t trained in predictive modelling.

Social scientists might be able to offer convincing-sounding explanations for what has happened. But it’s increasingly doubtful that they can predict what’s going to happen. Want to know where things are headed? Rather than ask a social scientist, you might be better off averaging a load of guesses, or simply extrapolating from the past.

Tags: ExpertsForecastingThe Science

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

U.S. Warming Over Last 50 Years Exaggerated by Up to 50%, New Evidence Shows

Next Post

Vaccine Safety Update

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Monro
Monro
1 year ago

‘….a failure of the British political machinery, notably the work of the unelected Climate Change Committee. “We have set out to decarbonise the economy without anyone having thought through all the engineering issues, let alone put a cost on the exercise,” 

So let me get this straight…..a totalitarian committee of environmentalists has completely ignored one of the basic tenets (cost/benefit analysis) of the ‘precautionary principle’, a ‘principle’ first invented by totalitarian environmentalists (in Germany)

Isn’t that all a bit, you know, what’s the word……oh yes…..totalitarian…….

In fact Socialist Fascism…..

135
-1
FerdIII
FerdIII
1 year ago
Reply to  Monro

Mass electrification has always led to human death and injury – often reported as ‘flu’ or an epidemic. Radiation has its consequences including enormous eco system and wildlife destruction. I suppose handcuffing Gaia in endless chains of electrified radiation will be ‘proven’ by the ‘science’ to be ‘safe and effective’.

For the record Fossils Fuels is a bullshit moniker. The Russians 100 years ago discovered that clean burning hydrocarbons are self renewing and created at the mantle and core. Dinos and algae produce nothing. Try the algae experiment at home and see if crushed sea weed or kelp yields hyrdocarbons.

52
-5
GroundhogDayAgain
GroundhogDayAgain
1 year ago
Reply to  FerdIII

I’d like to read more on that. Do you have a reference?

6
0
Orlando
Orlando
1 year ago
Reply to  GroundhogDayAgain

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008RG000270

4
0
wokeman
wokeman
1 year ago

It’s amazing, saving the planet always appears to resemble large scale environmental destruction. How many ppl must be frozen to death, how many trees must be felled, whales beached and birds/bats chomped to appease Thunberg? Answer you should never appease communists.

Last edited 1 year ago by wokeman
159
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  wokeman

“The urge to save the planet is almost always a false face for theurge to rule it”—-Mencken

80
0
Lockdown Sceptic
Lockdown Sceptic
1 year ago

It’s all based on a contempt for humanity

Scottish wind farm contempt for humanity  leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online. 

02b-Scottishwindfarmcontemptforhumanity-MONOCHROME-copy
41
0
RTSC
RTSC
1 year ago

““The Green future is an industrial wasteland of concrete and steel built to line the pockets of billionaires and bankers” …… and the bank accounts of the politicians who are endorsing the lunacy and forcing it on us.

104
0
Jonathan M
Jonathan M
1 year ago

This Net Zero insanity must stop, but I can’t see the Tories doing much about it and Labour will almost certainly double down on it.

65
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan M

Sometimes though reality punches you in the face like you just fell out with Mike Tyson. Western governments are going to get a huge uppercut that will put a stop to them in the fifth. It’s going to make “Rumble in the Jungle” look like handbags in a working men’s club

44
0
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago

The COP enthusiasts should be reminded that we (humanity) like to behave as the top dogs with regard to the environment. However, there are lots of matters that we can’t actually modified when it comes to the weather; we need to adapt to it and improve the efficacy of our resilience to various changes.

Looking at the concept of long distance transmission capacity, the local distribution in urban areas, and rural areas down at the District Network Operation (DNO) part of the grid is the one that is most likely to affect people directly. I’m not advertising (YouTube do that), but this 5 minute YT entry about a recent local cable renewal might be useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS8VFhRMsYY Towards the end, I’ve included a few notes about the latest issue of BS7671. It allows the introduction of remote control (“Load Curtailment”), in effect, so that usage of certain devices – like EV charging – is within the local capacity of the cabling. That won’t be popular when it comes! There are other requirements re the use of “SMART” metering associated with charging devices, which would lead to the concept of varying pricing, including taxation for EV charging.

33
0
Steve-Devon
Steve-Devon
1 year ago

Time to do the Maths

Presumably this needs to happen across the whole of Europe, the USA and indeed all around the World? Can it be done? are there enough natural resources in the world to achieve this? Can we ever generate enough electric to actually make use of this level of supply infrastructure?

If humanity survives for another 100 years, will people in the future look back and wonder what madness drove our society to try and think that this unachievable pipe-dream was all a good idea?

56
0
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve-Devon

If you look up the performance of the system via this https://grid.iamkate.com/ or other places, you’ll see what the variation is like. A degree of load management would be required, but I think the real issue is local distribution (see my notes elsewhere here today) to deal with a transition. Although my notes are to do with EV development, similar issues could be related to a move from domestic gas fired heating to electric only.

15
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 year ago
Reply to  JohnK

Wind and solar vary from 60-70% of current generating need all the way down to more or less zero. Installing more wind turbines and solar panels might get that up to close to a peak of 100% and a low of….more or less zero (unless somehow there are parts of the UK that are windy and/or sunny when others are not that they haven’t yet got round to covering). So you need a backup that you can switch on, or batteries/pumped storage. If you have a backup that you can switch on, it has to be burning stuff, so if that’s off the table then it’s nuclear, which is harder to switch on and off so if you need close to 100% coverage from nuclear then why bother with wind. Some miracle storage technology might arrive but no sign of it so far, so regardless of the logistics of cabling, it seems obvious that even the generation is unfeasible.

34
0
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

Yes, there is not much rapid response backup for unexpected spikes. There are just a couple of relatively tiny ones, which are pumped storage hydro, like the Dinorwig one in N Wales https://www.fhc.co.uk/en/electric-mountain-visitor-centre/ , and other conventional hydro stations in Scotland. Nuclear stations are slow to respond and are generally used for steady demand round the clock.

Since Dinorwig was commissioned, a couple of old nuclear ones in N Wales have been shut down, with potential replacement projects being stuck in the financial mire for the time being.

4
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 year ago
Reply to  JohnK

Unexpected spikes but also the wind not blowing and the sun not shining. Those pumped storage stations take up a lot of space and don’t last very long. You would need a lot of them to provide enough coverage to cater for the wind not blowing, if you eliminate gas, and transition from gas heating, ICE cars etc. I doubt there’s enough space on this island to fit enough of them in, or enough suitable sites, and the environment impact is huge.

7
0
JeremyP99
JeremyP99
1 year ago

When I stumble across the many many climate crazies one meets on Twitter, I ask them how NetZero can be reached without the most humungous use of fossil fuels.

Oddly, they never respond

Also, given that the Internet runs on fossil fuels, what are they doing there?

TurbineFossilNeeds
49
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  JeremyP99

On barrel of oil has the same amount of energy as a person working 40 hours a week for 11 years. ———–Try replacing that with wind and sun and you are going to look pretty stupid.

35
-1
sskinner
sskinner
1 year ago
Reply to  JeremyP99

Sort of. I understand the blades to be made of carbon fibre but that requires petroleum, as well as heat. It also has that magic word ‘Carbon’.

10
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago

Energy demand globally grows by one United Kingdom’s worth every year. Renewables cannot even get close to covering that growth, never mind replacing the existing energy sources which are 80% fossil fuels. ——-When doing something makes no difference then why do it? -Because you’re not doing it for the reasons you say you are. Net Zero is not about climate change, and climate change is not about science.

59
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 year ago

I’m sure there are some true believers who think it can be achieved, or haven’t really thought about it, but I cannot believe that the principal actors in this actually think it can be achieved. Which begs the question, why are they pushing for it?

54
0
Geoff Cox
Geoff Cox
1 year ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

Exactly ToF. – you have more or less said what I was going to say. It is good to do this work to show it to the believers, but the .0001% don’t care. They are simply going to reduce energy supply and force everyone to stop travelling and heating their homes and using the internet etc. You can’t use more fuel than is supplied, so we will be left to adapt.

34
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Cox

“We are going to have to get used to using electricity as and when it is available” ———-Head of the National Grid (Steve Holliday) a few years ago. ——–He meant when the wind is blowing or sun is shining———-Welcome to the 21st century Green Utopia of restricted and rationed energy.

2
0
AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
1 year ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

I know you know this ToF so I’m just exercising my own take on it…You just need to look at religion and how so many take, at face value, the scriptures, especially the Old Testament. Then look at all the wars and struggles between the different religions. Why? My god better than your god etc! A lot of belief comes from a source of fear. I’m not saying ALL belief but a lot of it i.e., so hell and damnation and not following God’s guidance i.e. religious texts, written by men, underpins much religion. We mustn’t anger the gods and so on. Net Zero is also grounded in fear so I do feel that some of the principal actors – (the willing servants perhaps or even those who think it’s the best most vote-winning thing to do) – believe that we really are unleashing hell on earth if we don’t live like humble hermits in caves. Then of course there are those who know it’s all a big lie and a means by which to control us and depopulate the planet legitimately.

33
0
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago
Reply to  AethelredTheReadier

A good interpretation. But don’t forget that there are many of us that operate as opportunists, whoever wrote the script. Money talks, after all. That includes the investments made by pension schemes, and the Treasury.

14
0
Geoff Cox
Geoff Cox
1 year ago
Reply to  AethelredTheReadier

I broadly agree with you Aethelred of course, but I’d like to defend religion here a bit even though I am not religious. I’m sure Islamists go to war for their religion and no doubt some other faithful do likewise, but I think mostly warfare is underpinned by religion and culture and used by warmakers (and let’s face it the general public who often like a bit of a punch-up). In other words, I suspect in most cases religion is used as a motivator for soldiers and civilians, not the reason for it.

4
0
JayBee
JayBee
1 year ago

…and as with EU laws, it’s primarily Britain and Germany who follow and implement the Net Zero folly to a T. For the same reason: they like to legalise their corruption.

34
0
For a fist full of roubles
For a fist full of roubles
1 year ago

I have a friend who used to works for MANWEB (Merseyside and N Wales leccy board) at the time of much activity by the Free Wales Army. On a number of occasions he was called out to restore power after the FWA had blown up supply poles/pylons.
Where are the resourceful activists to do the same with on-shore wind turbines?

25
0
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago
Reply to  For a fist full of roubles

Perhaps some of them are campaigning against the London ULEZ scheme, with the odd camera failing for whatever reason.

19
0
Sinor
Sinor
1 year ago

With the CO28 hysteria in abundance in the MSM plus this article I thought I would look into one aspect that is often overlooked .The reckoning is that man made CO2 production may be around 3% the rest being natural sources .
The biggest being Volcanic activity .A quick Google , did you know there are around 1500 potentially active volcanoes globally ?
In 2023 so far there have been 67 eruptions from 66 volcanoes .
We could all live in caves , eating bugs and dieing from exposure yet the planet will still be producing 97% natural CO2 .
It really is total bollocks !!

55
0
JayBee
JayBee
1 year ago

https://www.takimag.com/article/green-groups-are-no-longer-promoting-a-cleaner-environment/

8
0
True Spirit of America Party
True Spirit of America Party
1 year ago

Unless Nikola Tesla’s wireless electricity and free energy devices are implemented, that is.

9
0
JXB
JXB
1 year ago

That is 50 million miles/82 million kilometres of copper wire.

That requires a vast tonnage of copper and an even greater tonnage of copper ore.

One tiny detail.

The necessary amount of copper ore to produce the copper to make the wire cannot be mined within that timescale. In fact to scale up ore mining to the levels not even close to need would take over 50 years.

As supply of copper wire increasingly fails to meet demand, prices will rocket.

And. A recent report indicated investment in copper ore mining had eased back due to… drum roll… declining demand for copper.

So Sceptics – with what does the Team think those millions of miles/kilometres of power lines will be made?

Last edited 1 year ago by JXB
19
0
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago
Reply to  JXB

It’s a lot of material, but mostly aluminium for transmission cable, including buried cable. E.g. the one that distributes power to this place is 3-core Al under the street, with a short copper service cable to this house. Copper is flexible, but more expensive than the rest of it.

7
0
JXB
JXB
1 year ago

The transition is not from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuel energy source, this is a smoke screen, but transition from multiple energy sources to a single secondary source – electricity.

This replaces primary energy sources: oil, gas, coal, motor fuels – which can replace electricity to provide heat, light, cooking, transport and which can be controlled and used to generate continuous output of electricity.

Worse, being a secondary energy source electricity is reliant on some other energy source to produce it – it cannot be mined, or extracted from wells.

This means our economies have a single point of failure – the part of a system that, if it fails, will stop the entire system from working.

No engineer would design or retrofit a system to make it so vulnerable.

And it will be vulnerable from vagueries of the weather, natural and intentional high energy electro-magnetic pulses.

It also is instantly controllable by those in charge offering an excellent means of crowd control.

24
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  JXB

“excellent means of crowd control” ———-Yep. The smart meter. Many think the smart meter is there to save them money, but it is actually there to ration energy use and charge more at peak times and times when the wind isn’t blowing. —–Just as the head of the National Grid (Steve Holiday) said a few years ago “We are going to have to get used to using electricity as and when it is available”———-This is the green future. Having electricity when the wind decides to blow.

10
0
Old Brit
Old Brit
1 year ago

Nuclear SMRs can be built where they are needed and where the infrastructure exists

5
0
Old Brit
Old Brit
1 year ago

Money is always the bottom line. We are badly in debt and on course to get more, without this extra spending

9
0
Phil Warner
Phil Warner
1 year ago

Another giant step towards bankrupting the west. Surely the CCP will at least lend us moral support.

9
0
Covid-1984
Covid-1984
1 year ago

They lied about Covid-19, about vaccines, lockdowns, EV’S now Net Zero…just ignore them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Covid-1984
14
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

Episode 36 of the Sceptic: Karl Williams on Starmer’s Phoney Immigration Crackdown, Dan Hitchens on the Assisted Suicide Bill and Tom Jones on Reform’s Local Council Challenge

by Richard Eldred
16 May 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

15 May 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

16 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

16 May 2025
by Will Jones

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

29

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

25

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

19

News Round-Up

18

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

27

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Renaud Camus on the Destruction of Western Education

15 May 2025
by Dr Nicholas Tate

‘Why Can’t We Talk About This?’

15 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

POSTS BY DATE

November 2022
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
« Oct   Dec »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences