Skip to main content

How to Predict the Unpredictable - William Poundstone ****

There's a certain kind of maths title that delights. It's not the kind of pure maths you'd find in an Ian Stewart book, where maths is an intricate, latticework puzzle like a net of spun sugar that need have no connection to the real world. No, this is maths as impure and dirty as it gets. It sneaks up behind us and takes us by surprise, because this is the maths at the interface with psychology - maths that often challenges our beliefs and understanding of the world. It can be both deeply satisfying and quite interesting in a QI fashion, all at the same time.

I suppose the classic of this field is Freakonomics, though I would also recommend The Tiger that Isn't and (in a modest way), my own Dice World. What William Poundstone does with great aplomb here is to unpick our dubious relationship with randomness. In the first half of the book he points out how we are particularly poor envisaging randomness, and how, as a result, if you understand how people get it wrong, it's possible to get an unexpected edge in everything from rock - paper - scissors to multiple choice questions. This all starts with a lovely description of the 'outguessing machine' an incredibly simple device that nonetheless is generally capable at beating humans at a guessing game.

The second part of the book is rather more tenuously linked by the idea of a 'hot hand' - the sport (and specifically basketball) delusion that people who are on a winning streak are more likely to succeed again - coupled with the gamblers' fallacy, which says that, for instance, after a run of black on a roulette wheel, red is more likely to come up. As Poundstone points out, these two apparently contradictory fallacies are actually linked, as the first is only applied in something involving human skill, while the second is reserved for mechanical outcomes. He shows how an understanding of these can help with football betting, property prices and the stock market.

I loved the book until well over half way through. Even in the apparently straightforward answer to 'how to outguess the lottery', Poundstone goes further than the traditional 'by using random selections, rather than human choice.' He isn't going over the boundary to say you can predict the outcome - that really is unpredictable - but rather how to maximise your winnings if you do win. Towards the end of the book, though the content got too specialist for me. There was too much on sports betting, which I have no interest in, and then on ways to beat the stock market, a section which is far too long and technically detailed for the general reader. It's a real shame that this section is used to end the book as it means the whole thing ends on quite a downer.

Don't get me wrong - the concept of beating the stock market is mind-boggling, as the market itself is the kind of chaotic system that isn't possible to forecast. But Poundstone shows how some measures, dependent on the inability of traders to overcome our ability to read patterns into randomness that isn't there, give a long term guidance on action.  And this would have been great if covered in five pages. But as the 36 page finale of the book it's a disappointment. 

So this is mostly a great book - do read it and be prepared to be delighted - but unless you are a sports better or play the markets be prepared for a little disappointment towards the end.


Paperback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re