Open Thoughts on Analytics
AUG 3, 2012 8:54am ET

Related Links

Beyond Big Data: Consider the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Data Management
September 19, 2014
Customer Experience Increasingly the Focus of Big Data Projects
September 19, 2014
Big Data is More Than Just Hype
September 18, 2014

Web Seminars

Essential Guide to Using Data Virtualization for Big Data Analytics
September 24, 2014
Integrating Relational Database Data with NoSQL Database Data
October 23, 2014

Data Bias: Are You a Fox or a Hedgehog?


I just got back from a vacation week at the outer banks of North Carolina – yet another great confluence of family, sun, beach, hard crabs, tuna sushi and hefeweizen.

Get access to this article and thousands more...

All Information Management articles are archived after 7 days. REGISTER NOW for unlimited access to all recently archived articles, as well as thousands of searchable stories. Registered Members also gain access to:

  • Full access to including all searchable archived content
  • Exclusive E-Newsletters delivering the latest headlines to your inbox
  • Access to White Papers, Web Seminars, and Blog Discussions
  • Discounts to upcoming conferences & events
  • Uninterrupted access to all sponsored content, and MORE!

Already Registered?


Comments (2)
Doesn't this mean that the issue is really a respect for reality vs. a rationalistic reliance on a frozen abstraction, i.e. a mental model that, once arrived at, is never again tested against the real world? That is not nearly as entertaining as a comparison of canines and rodents, but it simplifies the issue a bit. I know, personally, I develop models to describe the things that I understand conceptually in a compact, coherent way, but I consider the model secondary to the real-world concretes that furnished the data from which I formed that model. The Bayesian approach simply says that that model is NOT a frozen truth-generator, but a MODEL, i.e. a _representation_ of reality, subject to better information. I don't accept what I see as a false alternative, that this somehow demands "radical skepticism." It demands integrity, which to me means a respect for reality and the knowledge that I don't know EVERYTHING, NOT that I know NOTHING. Skepticism with a capital "S" is the latter and that I would reject. To declare that nothing is knowable means you can stop there. So, maybe I don't reject the very interesting distinction you bring up, just the categorical imperative Tetlock seems to tack onto it.
Posted by Alan N | Monday, August 20 2012 at 6:32PM ET
Clem Sunter, renowned South African scenario planner, together with with Chantell Ilbury, describe themselves as "... foxy, game-playing strategists". They have co-authored a series of books on Strategic Planning, based around the "... the twin metaphors of 'foxes' and 'games'". They have a site at where you can gain more insight into their thinking, and access their works.
Posted by Brian S | Tuesday, August 21 2012 at 2:56AM ET
Add Your Comments:
You must be registered to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Login  |  My Account  |  White Papers  |  Web Seminars  |  Events |  Newsletters |  eBooks
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.