Dubner and I wrote a column in the NY Times that told people to bet on Seattle in the Super Bowl. The bet lost. Not more than three people mentioned this to me afterwards. Not a single angry e-mail from a stranger who lost their college tuition fund because of our column.
I’m glad people didn’t write me, but still, there should be punishment for wrong predictions.
For instance, there have been economists who predicted Japan’s economy would race past the American economy, that there would be depressions and ages of reckoning, all sorts of nasty stuff. There was Dow 30,000 or whatever the prediction was in a book by well-known economists. And what about all the doomsayers leading up to Y2K?
Just before the bowl season this last year, Michael Lewis made a case that the Texas Tech football who is the greatest offensive genius who ever lived in a NYT magazine cover story. A few weeks later Texas Tech scores 10 points in losing to Alabama in the Cotton Bowl.
It seems like predictors who go completely wrong get off too easy, me included.
So expect lots more predictions from me in the near future.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
In the Seahawks game, people were more apt to blame the refs than anything else. I’m not sure that people give away ownership of their
bets as much as you think. Since humans are pretty arrogant, they tend to believe that they have free will and that they were responsible for their actions.
In the Seahawks game, people were more apt to blame the refs than anything else. I’m not sure that people give away ownership of their
bets as much as you think. Since humans are pretty arrogant, they tend to believe that they have free will and that they were responsible for their actions.
We would have had to have believed you in the first place.
We would have had to have believed you in the first place.
first predicition then, since you are a NASCAR fan… 2006 NASCAR champ?
i say greg biffle but am very impressed by carl edwards. i’m a Jr. fan but not sure if he’s gonna do it this year. i’ll have to watch it on NASCAR.com since i’m stuck in india.
biffle is winning the mini-poll on my site. thanks.
zac
http://slyght.blogspot.com
first predicition then, since you are a NASCAR fan… 2006 NASCAR champ?
i say greg biffle but am very impressed by carl edwards. i’m a Jr. fan but not sure if he’s gonna do it this year. i’ll have to watch it on NASCAR.com since i’m stuck in india.
biffle is winning the mini-poll on my site. thanks.
zac
http://slyght.blogspot.com
People are always accountable for their actions, the case you mentioned just highlights the fact that there is a repercussion continuum for bad advice (less likely to act on advice in the future –> utter outrage).
I would suggest that where a reaction falls on the continuum depends on at least two factors: 1) did the advisee pay the adviser for the advice, and 2) did the adviser represent to the advisee that they had *superior information* regarding the subject matter (or event, in your case).
If you can imagine a matrix comprised of the combinations of these factors, your advice falls into the quadrant least likely to cause backlash (unpaid advice, where advisees were unlikely to act on the advice because they did not believe you had superior information) — thus, no backlash. Had you charged for the advise, I guarantee that you would be hearing more from your advisees. And had they paid for the advice, *and* you represented that your best friend was a referee and that he would ensure the outcome you specified, then people would be especially outraged by an contradictory outcome.
I think such a matrix makes it more clear why some advisors (paid stock advice) get backlash for bad advice, while others do not (football predictions).
People are always accountable for their actions, the case you mentioned just highlights the fact that there is a repercussion continuum for bad advice (less likely to act on advice in the future –> utter outrage).
I would suggest that where a reaction falls on the continuum depends on at least two factors: 1) did the advisee pay the adviser for the advice, and 2) did the adviser represent to the advisee that they had *superior information* regarding the subject matter (or event, in your case).
If you can imagine a matrix comprised of the combinations of these factors, your advice falls into the quadrant least likely to cause backlash (unpaid advice, where advisees were unlikely to act on the advice because they did not believe you had superior information) — thus, no backlash. Had you charged for the advise, I guarantee that you would be hearing more from your advisees. And had they paid for the advice, *and* you represented that your best friend was a referee and that he would ensure the outcome you specified, then people would be especially outraged by an contradictory outcome.
I think such a matrix makes it more clear why some advisors (paid stock advice) get backlash for bad advice, while others do not (football predictions).