I was just listening to Freakonomics. It was an episode about prediction and some of the shortcomings we have when it comes to making them and believing them.
One of the more interesting segments to me was an economist who did a study of experts and measured how good they were at predicting. There were lots of interesting tidbits here but what struck me as most interesting was some conclusions about what makes a good and bad predictor.
The economist stated a bad predictor was dogmatic. That in the face of changing evidence still tried to fit the world into their box. A good predictor on the other hand had constructive self criticism. As a shorthand measure of a good predictor you should be able to answer the question "What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?".
For starters the dogma thing seems only true if your dogma is wrong. If you are dogmatic in your skepticism and cynicism then you are better off than not;) Still the shorthand question strikes me as powerful and true. I will add this to my toolkit of self discovery. As I try to figure out the darkness that comes before.
