First of all, I think it's odd that people who cover politics wouldn't have any political views.
Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge.
The key to making a good forecast is not in limiting yourself to quantitative information.
A lot of journalism wants to have what they call objectivity without them having a commitment to pursuing the truth, but that doesn't work. Objectivity requires belief in and a commitment toward pursuing the truth - having an object outside of our personal point of view.
Every day, three times per second, we produce the equivalent of the amount of data that the Library of Congress has in its entire print collection, right? But most of it is like cat videos on YouTube or 13-year-olds exchanging text messages about the next Twilight movie.
By playing games you can artificially speed up your learning curve to develop the right kind of thought processes.
On average, people should be more skeptical when they see numbers. They should be more willing to play around with the data themselves.
Every four years in the presidential election, some new precedent is broken.
Caesar recognized the omens, but he didn't believe they applied to him.
Almost everyone's instinct is to be overconfident and read way too much into a hot or cold streak.
If you have reason to think that yesterday's forecast went wrong, there is no glory in sticking to it.
When you get into statistical analysis, you don't really expect to achieve fame. Or to become an Internet meme. Or be parodied by 'The Onion' - or be the subject of a cartoon in 'The New Yorker.' I guess I'm kind of an outlier there.
I have the same friends and the same bad habits.
People don't have a good intuitive sense of how to weigh new information in light of what they already know. They tend to overrate it.
The public is even more pessimistic about the economy than even the most bearish economists are.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.