For pundits, it's better to be confident than correct: Twitter analysis shows how 'yelling' attracts followers

May 28, 2013
Ben Smith, right, and Jadrian Wooten analyzed a billion tweets to demonstrate that pundits are more popular if they are confident than correct. Credit: Washington State University

It would be nice to think the pundits we see yelling on TV and squawking on Twitter are right all the time. It turns out they're wrong more often than they are right. Now two Washington State University economics students have demonstrated that it simply doesn't pay as much for a pundit to be accurate as it does to be confident. It's one thing to be a good pundit, but another to be popular.

"In a perfect world, you want to be accurate and confident," says Jadrian Wooten. "If you had to pick, being confident will get you more followers, get you more demand."

Wooten made his discovery with Ben Smith, a fellow economics graduate. Smith originally wanted to test the accuracy and confidence of pundits, taking inspiration from stock watcher and CNBC host Jim Cramer, whom Wooten describes as "the yelling genius that he thinks he is."

But stock predictions rarely come with a date at which one could say a pundit was right or wrong. do, so Smith made a to sort through more than 1 billion for predictions of the 2012 baseball playoffs and World Series and the 2013 Super Bowl.

The program pulled out tweets with team names, and expressions commonly associated with predictions, like "beat." Where they might rate the confidence of a television pundit by how loudly he or she yelled, a scale of word strength pegged words like "vanquish," "destroy" and "annihilate" as expressions of confidence.

Their hypothesis: Pundits have a false sense of confidence because that's what the public, seeking to avoid the stress of uncertainty, craves.

"They're trading away some of their accuracy to be a Jim Cramer," says Wooten. "'I might not be right all the time but I can yell louder than this other guy.'"

Wooten and Smith looked at both professional pundits - celebrities with verified Twitter accounts - and amateurs claiming some sports expertise. Both were worse at predicting than the 50-50 odds of a . Professionals were right 47 percent of the time, a hair better than the 45 percent accuracy of amateurs.

But the professionals were more confident, scoring a .480 confidence rating to the amateurs' .313.

And confidence pays - far better than accuracy.

If a professional pundit accurately predicted every game of the baseball playoffs and series, Wooten and Smith estimated his or her following would increase 3.4 percent. An amateur would get 7.3 percent more followers.

But a professional whose confidence knows no bounds would increase his or her following by nearly 17 percent and an amateur would see a nearly 20 percent rise in followers.

The outlier of the field could be Nate Silver, the statistician and New York Times political blogger. He's both cautious and accurate. But owing in large part to his correctly calling all 50 states in the recent presidential election, he's popular.

By and large, say Smith and Wooten, pundits get a better audience through confidence and the excitement it generates.

"There is some psychological literature on the idea that people hate uncertainty," says Smith. "The fact that people don't like uncertainty would suggest that they don't like the idea of a Nate Silver sort of person standing up there and saying, 'I'm only 90 percent sure.'"

"I like to think of it like a roulette wheel," says Wooten." If you have somebody just placing bets, that person is kind of boring. But if you have someone going, 'Oh, yeah! It's red!' and they are confident, that's the person that you are interested in."

Smith and Wooten outlined their findings earlier this year at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Economics and Finance. They plan to publish a paper on their method in an open-source journal, helping researchers, business people and others pose all sorts of questions to the vast amounts of data on the Internet.

Explore further: 'Off-the-shelf' equipment used to digitize insects in 3-D

Related Stories

2012 US election a 'Moneyball' win for geeks

Nov 07, 2012

It was not just a victory for President Barack Obama, it was validation for the number-crunchers and statistical model geeks, including a New York Times blogger who became a target for conservatives.

Predicting presidents, storms and life by computer

Nov 10, 2012

Forget political pundits, gut instincts, and psychics. The mightier-than-ever silicon chip seems to reveal the future. In just two weeks this fall, computer models displayed an impressive prediction prowess.

Tweeting our way to heart health

Apr 16, 2013

(Medical Xpress)—Real-time social phenomenon, Twitter, can be a powerful tool to help prevent heart disease and improve health practices, according to a group of researchers affiliated with the University ...

Recommended for you

Computer-assisted accelerator design

Apr 22, 2014

Stephen Brooks uses his own custom software tool to fire electron beams into a virtual model of proposed accelerator designs for eRHIC. The goal: Keep the cost down and be sure the beams will circulate in ...

First steps towards "Experimental Literature 2.0"

Apr 21, 2014

As part of a student's thesis, the Laboratory of Digital Humanities at EPFL has developed an application that aims at rearranging literary works by changing their chapter order. "The human simulation" a saga ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VENDItardE
1.3 / 5 (14) May 28, 2013
hmmmmmmmmmmm......2 people gave them 5's

I BET IT WAS THEMSELVES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sanescience
1 / 5 (7) May 29, 2013
This seems common sense. People who hold the same opinions aren't "fact checking" their pundits, their choosing the one they like to listen to. And confidence is sexy ;-)
la7dfa
not rated yet May 29, 2013
The trouble with experts....
Worth watching http://www.youtub...wQdo3sg4
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2013
Analysts simply advocate whatever their handlers wish to put on the market that day. That's where they make their money. If they actually followed their own advise then would be forced to relocate from snorting coke in the club to the smoking in the crackhouse within a fortnight
Moebius
1.4 / 5 (9) May 29, 2013
IF YOU LIKE YELLING WATCH bar rescue ON CABLE.
SolidRecovery
1.1 / 5 (12) May 29, 2013
Analysts simply advocate whatever their handlers wish to put on the market that day. That's where they make their money.


Exactly, it might not be about being right most of the time. It might be about making money or other outside pressures. This applies even more so to people who's career depends. As even Nate Silver has shown bias to Republicans party in the last election. On the other hand, a person might call a game just to mess with their friends or have their own home town biases.

With any public speech, confidence is key and no one will listen to you if they can't hear you.

More news stories

Is nuclear power the only way to avoid geoengineering?

"I think one can argue that if we were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering." So says Tom Wigley, one ...

US urged to drop India WTO case on solar

Environmentalists Wednesday urged the United States to drop plans to haul India to the WTO to open its solar market, saying the action would hurt the fight against climate change.