Buy The Book
By its nature, punditry craves attention, which is easier to attract with certainties than with equivocation. But that certitude reflects bravado more often than true knowledge.
Maybe Kobe Bryant should take heed, predicting a series comeback after being down 3-0 (i.e., needing FOUR consecutive wins), only to lose the next game by 36 points.
Many times, I find that “it depends” is the most accurate answer.
I’m not very good at unintentionally simple theoretic questions. I always have multiple questions asking for more information.
Our society seemingly enjoys drastic, swift, reactions to situations based on very limited, and occassionally inaccurate, information.
Oh well, next problem.
And also, it’s better to be resolute in the face of new data than to apply critical thinking and change your opinion.
Changing your mind in the face of new data actually disqualifies you from the Presidency!
Mindboggling.
May 25 14:14
Pete Palmer’s new book: Basic Ball
May 25 13:18
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?
May 25 13:04
“Why Kickstarter works”
May 25 12:51
Chad Curtis
May 25 12:40
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?
May 25 11:32
Howard Stern
May 25 11:26
Lack of hustle during a game
May 25 11:22
What sabermetrics is NOT
May 25 10:58
Rooting for laundry
May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion
I’m glad that Mankiw wrote that. But I fear that politicians will not listend to someone who says “I don’t know” or “we don’t have the right data” too often. I think a politican will listen to someone who sounds very confident. They might trust that person more. It is like Harry Truman said “Why can’t we find a good one-handed economist” instead of the ones who are always saying “on the other hand.”