Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
Sway said:
Isn't it the case that most people predict things worse than if they'd just permitted random predictions to occur? So most people would end up over 0.5?
I believe thats true in several areas. My old Chemistry teacher at school used to point out that anyone scoring less than the trained chimp score probably knew stuff but badly and what knowledge they had was getting in the way.Sway said:
Isn't it the case that most people predict things worse than if they'd just permitted random predictions to occur? So most people would end up over 0.5?
I think it depends what they're predicting. If it's whether the next car released by Tesla will run on petrol or electric... they'll probably do better than random at. I reckon I could have a decent stab at which Labour MP will be the next leader or deputy. Predicting lottery numbers it wouldn't surprise me if nearly everyone does worse than random given enough goes.I assume you get something like this, but where the centre of the distribution lies varies on the ability of the population to predict the events.
Edited by 768 on Thursday 20th February 14:49
fblm said:
768 said:
...Predicting lottery numbers it wouldn't surprise me if nearly everyone does worse than random given enough goes.
...
Random has exactly the same chance and any individual irrespective of the number of goes....
longblackcoat said:
Zalisky certainly seems to have plenty of thoughts, but no great thought process to back them up. If all you want is to someone to say unpleasant things then dress it up as "thinking the unthinkable" then sure, he's good for that job. But I'm not convinced that his views are remotely original or are supported by anything other than zealotry
How much of his stuff have you read that wasn't clippings such as that posted earlier on here/in chrismarptha's link? Because none of those were full.The other link posted (interviewer who disliked him quite evidently but also accepted the angle of some of the challenges) was a better read IMO in terms of why he might have been given the role.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no huge fan. His musings on the good link were interesting but not new. And taking what some of you are doing here to the next level, he looks like a prize dick. So I wouldn't be inclined to go for a drink with him.
That, in itself, does not make him no use for the role he was given though. (Far, far worse has happened in political spheres... Look at the David Steel revelations).
His comment on his resignation in chris' link seemed very balanced to me too.
How.many of us haven't said stupid things? Even in context
Irrelevent to a degree as he's gone. But I feel very uncomfortable with people being forced out of roles in this way.
Seeing as we're reluctant to move on from Sabisky in terms forcing others to condemn him, I'll address that first. I'm not sure I agree with anything he said but personally as I don't get emotional about words that may upset others, the main error, excluding that of judgement was the fallacious statements he presented as fact on genetics. So putting that to bed we're left with his views on eugenics which while concerns the genetic 'improvement' of entire populations is practised to a degree as part of our own reproduction, and more acutely through cherry picking sperm for artificial insemination or aborting fetuses with disabilities. So above the threshold or moral acceptability we have extermination of adults, yet below that there's still an issue with preventing drug addicts from reproducing because there is a racial correlation. Yet no one is arguing that we should lower the threshold to prohibit abortion, because that is the preserve of religious lunatics...
A postumous lottery win would certainly seem in keeping with the hand he was dealt!Murph7355 said:
longblackcoat said:
Zalisky certainly seems to have plenty of thoughts, but no great thought process to back them up. If all you want is to someone to say unpleasant things then dress it up as "thinking the unthinkable" then sure, he's good for that job. But I'm not convinced that his views are remotely original or are supported by anything other than zealotry
How much of his stuff have you read that wasn't clippings such as that posted earlier on here/in chrismarptha's link? Because none of those were full.The other link posted (interviewer who disliked him quite evidently but also accepted the angle of some of the challenges) was a better read IMO in terms of why he might have been given the role.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no huge fan. His musings on the good link were interesting but not new. And taking what some of you are doing here to the next level, he looks like a prize dick. So I wouldn't be inclined to go for a drink with him.
That, in itself, does not make him no use for the role he was given though. (Far, far worse has happened in political spheres... Look at the David Steel revelations).
His comment on his resignation in chris' link seemed very balanced to me too.
How.many of us haven't said stupid things? Even in context
Irrelevent to a degree as he's gone. But I feel very uncomfortable with people being forced out of roles in this way.
He may be a good forecaster but Isn’t it better for the government to find another superforecaster who hasn’t done these things? It’s not like he’s the only one around who can forecast.
“Boris do you agree with Andrew Sabisky’s views on women and black people’s IQ” It doesn’t look good. It’s not just the media, his own party were upset about it.
Some of his comments were even on Cummings own blog. Is Cummings just recruiting people like him that agree with him. That’s not really where new ways of thinking and innovative ideas come from.
El stovey said:
Some of his comments were even on Cummings own blog. Is Cummings just recruiting people like him that agree with him. That’s not really where new ways of thinking and innovative ideas come from.
Just on this little point, as it goes to the crux of the matter rather than the literal 'superforcaster' utility; the aim, I think, was to inject some radical thinking into a stultified organization - at the very start of the thread iirc there were some points on this aspect. It's not particularly what he thinks but how he/they thinks and the principle of 'breaking group think' - the group being the Civil Service and the breaking done by injecting some different points of view than the inculcated 'we do it because we always have'.
You remember the group murder mystery exercise thing? Same thing plays out in those 'escape room' challenges. same thing with business' and organisations with external consultants. It's not even the ideas that are necessarily important, just the presence of a stranger affects the bonded group, especially when challenged as to 'why things are done like this?'. I'm sure there are many people in the Civil Service that feel it is suboptimal and that are just as frustrated with the lack of performance but won't otherwise voice their opinions.
If you think about it, there are probably examples in everyone's lives where you see things being done in an entrenched way - sometimes for good reason but sometimes for no reason at all. The company I work for has a HR dept. that seems to have been paid by the competition, for so long they have justified existence [and 'built empire']by adding more and more complexity it's got to the point that it paralyses the actual aim of the company by slowing adaption and creating barriers rather than figuring out ways around them. Some is baby, but there's a lot of bathwater.
andy_s said:
If you think about it, there are probably examples in everyone's lives where you see things being done in an entrenched way - sometimes for good reason but sometimes for no reason at all. The company I work for has a HR dept. that seems to have been paid by the competition, for so long they have justified existence [and 'built empire']by adding more and more complexity it's got to the point that it paralyses the actual aim of the company by slowing adaption and creating barriers rather than figuring out ways around them. Some is baby, but there's a lot of bathwater.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that challenging the way things are done is a bad thing are they though?"We've always done it that way" can be very dangerous in business and I'm sure that goes for government too.
The issue is simply that you shouldn't need to be reliant on people with appalling views like those expressed by Sabinsky to be able to come up with some alternatives.
"Weirdos and misfits" is one thing but the state of that guys comments is something else.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I don't think anyone's suggesting that challenging the way things are done is a bad thing are they though?
"We've always done it that way" can be very dangerous in business and I'm sure that goes for government too.
The issue is simply that you shouldn't need to be reliant on people with appalling views like those expressed by Sabinsky to be able to come up with some alternatives.
"Weirdos and misfits" is one thing but the state of that guys comments is something else.
I don't think they chose him for these views specifically - either it's a lack of vetting or, indeed, a subgroupthink within 'the rationalists' that meant they saw but failed to see it from a social point of view, I don't know. As said early on, good he's gone but I still think the general idea is sound. "We've always done it that way" can be very dangerous in business and I'm sure that goes for government too.
The issue is simply that you shouldn't need to be reliant on people with appalling views like those expressed by Sabinsky to be able to come up with some alternatives.
"Weirdos and misfits" is one thing but the state of that guys comments is something else.
The press, pundits and establishment have gunned for Cummings from the early days; whether that's because he tells them to f
k off and calls them idiots or whether they genuinely don't understand is unclear...andy_s said:
Just on this little point, as it goes to the crux of the matter rather than the literal 'superforcaster' utility; the aim, I think, was to inject some radical thinking into a stultified organization - at the very start of the thread iirc there were some points on this aspect.
It's not particularly what he thinks but how he/they thinks and the principle of 'breaking group think' - the group being the Civil Service and the breaking done by injecting some different points of view than the inculcated 'we do it because we always have'.
Right but if you’re in charge of the new radical thinking department in your organisation, how radical are your ideas going to be if everyone you recruit is like you and you find them by their comments on your blog. It's not particularly what he thinks but how he/they thinks and the principle of 'breaking group think' - the group being the Civil Service and the breaking done by injecting some different points of view than the inculcated 'we do it because we always have'.
He wanted people skilled in lots of different areas, super forecasting was just one. It was pointed out by a few on here that what he’s likely to get are a load of mini Dominics which isn’t best for innovation. Isn’t he just creating a group think of his own.
Plus Cummings is also making it very hard to get anything done as he’s attacking all the institutions around him like parliament, the judiciary, government departments, the media etc designed to keep government in check.
It just looks like a bad way of going about creating change and keeping people you need onside. Now the media are out to get him and are scrutinising anyone he employs most of them will be easy game if they’re similar to
El stovey said:
Now the media are out to get him and are scrutinising anyone he employs most of them will be easy game if they’re similar to
The media would have been automatically after anyone trying to change the existing status quo.So he could have an easy ride, and not achieve anything he wanted. Or try and change things and attract fanatical opposition.
JagLover said:
The media would have been automatically after anyone trying to change the existing status quo.
utter nonsenseJagLover said:
So he could have an easy ride, and not achieve anything he wanted. Or try and change things and attract fanatical opposition.
no, he is being derided and laughed at because he appointed a little mini-me who turned out to be a nazi, showing that Cummings is very fallible.andy_s said:
The press, pundits and establishment have gunned for Cummings from the early days; whether that's because he tells them to fk off and calls them idiots or whether they genuinely don't understand is unclear...
Isn’t it his abrasive style and the fact that he’s declared war on them all simultaneously.k off and calls them idiots or whether they genuinely don't understand is unclear...As someone who says he’s a massive fan of Bismarck the master of diplomacy he’s making enemies with everyone which looks to be why they’re all now queuing up to kick his arse (plus he’s trying to get rid of many of them). At the moment Boris is protecting him but Boris seems to maybe not be the most reliable of allies. Especially now that he’s in power and brexit is largely behind him.
Most people seem to agree that changes are needed in how government is run but presumably if you look at people you know in your organisations who’ve managed making unpopular change,it’s not by doing what Cummings is doing. It’s by recognition of the inertia your organisation and managing to convince people that there might be better ways of doing things.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff