THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I did not read the whole article, but I second that opinion about Phil.

Every government (local, state, federal, etc.) and company should have a whole army of people like Phil to deconstruct arguments by the politicians and the so-called experts.  For example, whether the proposed 700 bil bailout by the feds of these beleaguered companies is best for the the US.

It always amazes me when politicians have an “opinion” on something that they know little or nothing about and the experts don’t even agree on. How is that possible?  It is possible, of course, for anyone to have an “opinion” on anything, but the real question is, “What is that opinion worth?”

In the case of most politicians (again, on “technical” issues), it is worth about as much as Murray Chass’ (or 1000 other baseball pundits) opinion on who is the most valuable baseball player to have on a team going forward or who is the best defensive player in baseball.  The ONLY thing a politician should do in terms of deciding on a complex or technical issue is to talk to lots of experts and try to take their REAL opinions and turn them into good public policy (and to some extent “poll” their constituents to see how they feel and what they think about matters that involve some “personal choice”, such as abortion and privacy).

What I find interesting is how willing both voters and politicians are to turn their own intuition into fact. Don’t bother doing research, formal study, or speaking with those who make a living working in a particular field.

Just pick the idea that sounds the prettiest, and use confirmation bias to proliferate.

(Not that I’m exempt from this behavior. Irrationality bothers me the most once I’ve caught myself falling victim.)

A very small percentage of the population is willing to admit or recognizes what it is they don’t know or don’t know well.  I don’t know if that is especially true of politicians/policy-makers, but they certainly are no exceptions.