The recent award of the Nobel Prize to Angus Deaton of Princeton caused me to ponder—well actually, think—about his reliance on data and analysis.
It also reminded me of the book “Moneyball” (which I read at least 10 years ago), the story of Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics. He began using analysis of baseball data (rather than visual determinations such as “he looks like a ball player”) to determine which players they would draft and/or sign. Looking past the façade to the facts should be a thought process we all employ.
In a recent article in the New York Times, Professor Philip Tetlock and J. Peter Scoblic posed a question, “Is there a solution to this country’s polarized politics?” They cite a number of different instances, including the Iranian nuclear deal, where they saw both sides making non-falsifiable predictions and thus each side felt less accountable. In a recent speech to college freshmen, I quoted Senator Sanders for his call for a free college education for all, and former Governor Judd Greg, Jr. for asserting that President Obama had dramatically expanded the federal government. The challenge to the students was to look past a statement that might appeal to them or anger them, and challenge the factual basis of those statements.
If we listen to political speak, there is very little fact or analysis provided. That is not to say that facts aren’t provided, but they are frequently provided in a way that supports a non-falsifiable prediction.
Professor Tetlock conducted tournaments of super forecasters. The most important factor arising out of these tournaments was that those who were successful “learned to seriously consider the possibility that they might be wrong.”
David Brooks recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he stated, “The process of making decisions amid diverse opinions . . . involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and to balance valid but competing ideas and interests.”
Professor Deaton, Professor Tetlock, Mr. Scoblic, Mr. Brooks and “Moneyball” all deliver essentially the same hypothesis from substantially different angles, backgrounds, and perspectives.
This is not to suggest that we should become Spock-like (you remember Star Trek) in our views, but rather to say that when a hypothesis is put forward relying on instinct, do we, in fact, then break it down through analysis. Steve Jobs clearly relied heavily on his instinct in terms of products and product appearance, but equally focused on the functionality and then obviously on the results of sales to determine whether or not he had embarked on the right path.
If you listen to the media, whether left or right, virtually every sentence contains hyperbole and misstatement of facts, or at least an incomplete statement of fact that is being relied on to create the hyperbole.
If we are going to change how politics operates, particularly in Congress, both parties must learn the value of data, the analytic process, and then adopt two fundamental philosophies: (a) I could be wrong; and (b) how do I incorporate valid but competing facts or ideas into my solution?
Mr. Owens is a former member of Congress representing the New York 23rd , a strategic advisor at Dentons out of its Washington, DC, office, and a partner in the firm of Stafford, Owens, Piller, Murnane, Kelleher & Trombley, PLLC, in Plattsburgh, New York.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.