Nicholas Kristof reviews research on 82,000 predictions by 284 "experts" to find what characteristics are associated with success.
Indeed, the only consistent predictor was fame — and it was an inverse relationship. The more famous experts did worse than unknown ones. That had to do with a fault in the media. Talent bookers for television shows and reporters tended to call up experts who provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites. People who shouted — like, yes, Jim Cramer!
Mr. Tetlock called experts such as these the "hedgehogs," after a famous distinction by the late Sir Isaiah Berlin (my favorite philosopher) between hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs tend to have a focused worldview, an ideological leaning, strong convictions; foxes are more cautious, more centrist, more likely to adjust their views, more pragmatic, more prone to self-doubt, more inclined to see complexity and nuance. And it turns out that while foxes don't give great sound-bites, they are far more likely to get things right.
This was the distinction that mattered most among the forecasters, not whether they had expertise. Over all, the foxes did significantly better, both in areas they knew well and in areas they didn't.
Kristoff also observes that pundits are seldom held accountable for being wrong. To the contrary, they get more media attention because their fame is increasing. This provides substance to the ideas that "there is no bad publicity" and "it's better to be wrong than to be irrelevant." It also suggests that what rises to the top even in "serious" media may be froth and not cream. I doubt this means I can get rich betting against famous hedgehogs like, say, Jim Cramer, but it does reinforce my preference for having judgments that affect my life made by foxes instead of hedgehogs. Barack Obama instead of George W. Bush, for example.