While I can forecast reasonably well I think, my big question I've been thinking about is beyond increasing my score on this website, what tips do people here have on using forecasting to add value to ones life?
Yes, I would say 1.self-help is the most obvious gain from developing forecasting skills.
I also thought about 5.Political activism you mentioned.
I think it becomes increasingly crucial to decypher the parameters and patterns that drive politics as old political narratives and debates might seem like ceremonial kabuki. While I have huge respect for the likes of Marx, Keynes, Freedman and many others, I think the world is shifting towards a digital industrialization where these world views might just barely scratch the surface and only sustain echo chambers of subjective narratives. Forecasting and rigorous modeling can help look past that and avoid the oversimplification of conspiracy theories.
As you say, this won't guarantee winning but I can at least avoid putting my money on sustaining echo chambers.
@Averroes I think, if I read you correctly, you are actually adding something new. This is that it is not just helping you in using your limited time and resources effectively for your chosen "team", it is also making you think more carefully about which team to support. The discovery that all these "teams" are mostly nonsense echo chambers for me at least was illuminating.
I have never supported any political party probably since I started Uni and have always identified myself as a centrist swing voter. It's precisely because both sides seem to me to be essentially a form of pure religion with no evidence whatsoever to support either side in full. I find no more (or less) truth in Marx, etc than is found in the bible, either testament, the Quran or any other form of non-evidence backed reason.
So I make my choices one election at a time to support the team that pushes our country in the right direction for the immediate horizon foreseen by the election.
I have been doing this for so long that I never connected it to my forecasting skills or vice versa.
@sebbysteiny Regardless, the echo chamber rhetoric is essential to define a party's identity against its adversaries. It's like advertising and it's essential in order to convince people that are rarely involved in politics (due to lack of time, interest etc.) to vote.
I probably have a similar mentality to yours when voting. But I have some political beliefs hence I cannot vote anything on the political spectrum.
For example, I would never vote for Alt-right or Trump populism parties. I only want to understand the causes of their emergence and how they can be quenched again. History and simple economics are usually spot on the roots/pattern of their emergence.
I am against them since they are toxic to the pendulum of reforms that political parties and forces are striving for in Western democracies.
@Averroes "Regardless, the echo chamber rhetoric is essential to define a party's identity against its adversaries."
Yes, if a party's "echo chamber" rhetoric bares no correspondence whatsoever to truth, than what is the purpose of a political party at all?
This is a question I have wondered a great deal.
I like you considered a political party as essentially "pure advertising" mere puff, as you suggested. And in many ways if the rhetoric sounds similar to what your heart resonates with and truth be damned, have you not still voted wisely? I still sometimes give that advice to those who claim to not know who to vote for.
You are of course relying on your values being reflected by the leader you voted for and with a bit of luck, that leader should then work on a list of priorities closer to what you want than the other person who resonated less.
But the problem with this model of understanding politics is we assume the political parties are largely safe options with the only difference being different prioritisation of sensible stuff.
But some political parties and some political leaders even of previously sensible parties can have nothing but evil in their hearts and minds. These political parties can catch people with dis-information and lies and claim to have a set of priorities used for selling votes while actually having a completely different set of priorities when in government. And there is no accountability whatsoever for e.g. left wing leader lying about delivering nice stuff when all they want to do is destroy democracy.
Which brings me back to the question. What is the point of political parties? They are simply vehicles for ascertaining power. They all say they want to achieve good things for most people, but it's what they don't say that seems to matter most.
For me, the party I vote for is the one that will be least dogmatic and the most likely one to do the right thing for our democratic countries over their dogmatic zealotary. If they believe in evidence backed reason, I don't really mind if they come from the left or right. What matters is that they can notice when their ideas will lead to disaster and moderate and change accordingly. In the end, if any politician can do that, it then doesn't actually make much difference in terms of final outcomes what the list of priorities turns out to be.
The next most important thing for me is competence. Because an incompetent political leader with a good list of political priorities will be much worse at achieving those priorities than a very competent political leader who places those particular priorities lower down the pecking order.
But fundamentally, I vote to ensure the survival of democracy and the prosperity of its people for the next generation.
But still, I haven't yet answered what the point of a political party is, along with its echo chamber rhetoric.
The truth is darker in my view. A political party is simply a vehicle used to obtain power by any means possible. And everybody who wants to seize power forms a political party to do so. The echo chamber can say whatever it wants to say. Further, in all societies there are people that want a different set of leaders no matter those leaders. Many are zealots, many are opposing zealots, or some just want smaller democratically compatible enhancements. But whatever it is, political parties are an inevitable result of society. You can either fight it via brutal dictatorship crackdowns, civil wars and other forms of blood, or you can try and accommodate it by giving political parties a place to exist and contribute to political life in a democracy.
So my final conclusion is political parties are a necessary evil that arise out of human nature. One can either fight them of try and incorporate as constructively as possible within a democracy. I choose the latter. But political parties that aim to overthrow democracy, via outright winning or by forming "parties within a party" that then wins becomes a permanent threat that can never be removed.
I have a tips request.
While I can forecast reasonably well I think, my big question I've been thinking about is beyond increasing my score on this website, what tips do people here have on using forecasting to add value to ones life?
Yes, I would say 1.self-help is the most obvious gain from developing forecasting skills.
I also thought about 5.Political activism you mentioned.
I think it becomes increasingly crucial to decypher the parameters and patterns that drive politics as old political narratives and debates might seem like ceremonial kabuki. While I have huge respect for the likes of Marx, Keynes, Freedman and many others, I think the world is shifting towards a digital industrialization where these world views might just barely scratch the surface and only sustain echo chambers of subjective narratives. Forecasting and rigorous modeling can help look past that and avoid the oversimplification of conspiracy theories.
As you say, this won't guarantee winning but I can at least avoid putting my money on sustaining echo chambers.
@Averroes
I think, if I read you correctly, you are actually adding something new. This is that it is not just helping you in using your limited time and resources effectively for your chosen "team", it is also making you think more carefully about which team to support. The discovery that all these "teams" are mostly nonsense echo chambers for me at least was illuminating.
I have never supported any political party probably since I started Uni and have always identified myself as a centrist swing voter. It's precisely because both sides seem to me to be essentially a form of pure religion with no evidence whatsoever to support either side in full. I find no more (or less) truth in Marx, etc than is found in the bible, either testament, the Quran or any other form of non-evidence backed reason.
So I make my choices one election at a time to support the team that pushes our country in the right direction for the immediate horizon foreseen by the election.
I have been doing this for so long that I never connected it to my forecasting skills or vice versa.
@sebbysteiny
Regardless, the echo chamber rhetoric is essential to define a party's identity against its adversaries. It's like advertising and it's essential in order to convince people that are rarely involved in politics (due to lack of time, interest etc.) to vote.
I probably have a similar mentality to yours when voting. But I have some political beliefs hence I cannot vote anything on the political spectrum.
For example, I would never vote for Alt-right or Trump populism parties. I only want to understand the causes of their emergence and how they can be quenched again. History and simple economics are usually spot on the roots/pattern of their emergence.
I am against them since they are toxic to the pendulum of reforms that political parties and forces are striving for in Western democracies.
@Averroes
"Regardless, the echo chamber rhetoric is essential to define a party's identity against its adversaries."
Yes, if a party's "echo chamber" rhetoric bares no correspondence whatsoever to truth, than what is the purpose of a political party at all?
This is a question I have wondered a great deal.
I like you considered a political party as essentially "pure advertising" mere puff, as you suggested. And in many ways if the rhetoric sounds similar to what your heart resonates with and truth be damned, have you not still voted wisely? I still sometimes give that advice to those who claim to not know who to vote for.
You are of course relying on your values being reflected by the leader you voted for and with a bit of luck, that leader should then work on a list of priorities closer to what you want than the other person who resonated less.
But the problem with this model of understanding politics is we assume the political parties are largely safe options with the only difference being different prioritisation of sensible stuff.
But some political parties and some political leaders even of previously sensible parties can have nothing but evil in their hearts and minds. These political parties can catch people with dis-information and lies and claim to have a set of priorities used for selling votes while actually having a completely different set of priorities when in government. And there is no accountability whatsoever for e.g. left wing leader lying about delivering nice stuff when all they want to do is destroy democracy.
Which brings me back to the question. What is the point of political parties? They are simply vehicles for ascertaining power. They all say they want to achieve good things for most people, but it's what they don't say that seems to matter most.
For me, the party I vote for is the one that will be least dogmatic and the most likely one to do the right thing for our democratic countries over their dogmatic zealotary. If they believe in evidence backed reason, I don't really mind if they come from the left or right. What matters is that they can notice when their ideas will lead to disaster and moderate and change accordingly. In the end, if any politician can do that, it then doesn't actually make much difference in terms of final outcomes what the list of priorities turns out to be.
The next most important thing for me is competence. Because an incompetent political leader with a good list of political priorities will be much worse at achieving those priorities than a very competent political leader who places those particular priorities lower down the pecking order.
But fundamentally, I vote to ensure the survival of democracy and the prosperity of its people for the next generation.
But still, I haven't yet answered what the point of a political party is, along with its echo chamber rhetoric.
The truth is darker in my view. A political party is simply a vehicle used to obtain power by any means possible. And everybody who wants to seize power forms a political party to do so. The echo chamber can say whatever it wants to say. Further, in all societies there are people that want a different set of leaders no matter those leaders. Many are zealots, many are opposing zealots, or some just want smaller democratically compatible enhancements. But whatever it is, political parties are an inevitable result of society. You can either fight it via brutal dictatorship crackdowns, civil wars and other forms of blood, or you can try and accommodate it by giving political parties a place to exist and contribute to political life in a democracy.
So my final conclusion is political parties are a necessary evil that arise out of human nature. One can either fight them of try and incorporate as constructively as possible within a democracy. I choose the latter. But political parties that aim to overthrow democracy, via outright winning or by forming "parties within a party" that then wins becomes a permanent threat that can never be removed.