What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Showdown in Iowa: Why Markets Beat Models

January 4, 2012, 12:54 PM

An interesting thing happened yesterday in American politics.  Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, beat Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, by just eight votes in the Iowa caucuses.  But the really interesting thing was how the people who tried to forecast the result fared.

As Iowans began heading to their caucus sites, the Twittersphere lit up with predictions.  Two denizens of the New York Times's website, Nate Silver and Justin Wolfers, made a bet on the outcome.  Wolfers, a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania (and a friend of mine from graduate school), backed Romney, who was favored on Intrade.com.  The Intrade website allows political prognosticators to place bets by buying derivatives that can be redeemed for $10 if their predictions are correct; Romney was trading around $5 and up yesterday. Silver, a blogger who made his name with baseball statistics and a spot-on prediction of the 2008 presidential election, chose Santorum using a statistical model that suggested he had "momentum" coming into Iowa.

I don't know whether Silver used momentum, which he defines as "the trajectory of each candidate's polling", to make his 2008 predictions, but I think it leaves him open to major-league errors.  To understand why, think about what momentum means in the physical world.  If I ask you whether a baseball traveling through the air at 90 miles per hour is likely to stop in the next second, you'll probably say no - its momentum will carry it forward.  But what happens if the baseball hits a brick wall?  You wouldn't even know the brick wall was there unless you took into account all the information that might logically affect the path of the ball, not just the ball's behavior in the past.  In other words, if you base your predictions on extrapolation, you may be ignoring important facts that can affect the future.  The same can happen in politics, economics, and any number of other fields.

As long as there are no brick walls, Silver's models may work just fine.  But I'm worried that his models are based too much on the numbers he's already seen and not enough on the underlying processes that will determine political outcomes.  The Intrade market isn't constrained the way his models are, because investors can take into account every bit of information that may affect an election.  No mathematical model can do that.

Reliance on models to assess risk was one of the things that brought Wall Street to its knees a few years ago.  People could see that the big banks were taking on unhealthy amounts of debt, but the banks kept trading as long as their risk models didn't raise any red flags.  The problem was that the models didn't even account for the kinds of events that would unfold as subprime mortgages went sour.

When I make forecasts (as I did in my book Outrageous Fortunes, whose paperback edition is out this week!), I try to look deep below the streams of numbers to see the tectonic plates that are shifting under the surfaces of the world's economies.  Then I use logic to predict how those forces will collide.  I still use models to help identify these forces, but I'm convinced that depending on them completely is a recipe for failure.  The world is changing every minute, and there's no model that can keep up.



Showdown in Iowa: Why Marke...

Newsletter: Share: