Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
The CIA laid out several scenarios and said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.
I'll fight Wladimir Klitschko and knock him out if he comes back; I'll definitely knock him out.
Give me a lead of 14-0 at halftime and I will dictate the final score.
The supporters now, the bureaucrats of science, do not wish to take any risks. So in order to get it supported, they want to know from the start that it will work.
I'm going to consistently hit anywhere between .290 and .310. Anything above that, I'm catching breaks and finding holes.
I'm a lousy predictor of the future.
The major problem with most attempts to predict a specific outcome, such as interviews, is decontextualization: the attempt takes place in a generalized environment, as opposed to the context in which a behavior or trait naturally occurs.
I was not surprised by the results of the Horizon experiments, but I remain willing to observe and consider any and all other tests that are done under similarly precise conditions.
A pinch of probability is worth a pound of perhaps.
I'm always trying to calculate the mathematical probability of certain outcomes.
One cannot judge the poll outcome by the crowds one draws at public meetings.
At a very young age I was predicting outcomes, trying to take all the information and find the best route to wherever I was going. I avoided a lot of pitfalls because of that.
If you decide on a goal - for example, 'I'm going to write a novel' or 'I'm going to run a 10K' - your subconscious will formulate the likelihood of that happening based on past experiences.
We will never have 100 percent certainty except in hindsight.
In any decision for action, when you have to make up your mind what to do, there is always a 'should' involved, and this cannot be worked out from, 'If I do this, what will happen?' alone.
If you were surprised when Nixon resigned, just watch what happens when I whup Foreman's behind!
The math works. Over the course of a season, there's some predictability to baseball. When you play 162 games, you eliminate a lot of random outcomes. There's so much data that you can predict: individual players' performances and also the odds that certain strategies will pay off.
You think the world was shocked when Nixon resigned? Wait till I whup George Foreman's behind.
I got a hundred bucks says my baby beats Pete's baby. I just think genetics are in my favour.
You can only predict things after they have happened.
Everybody evaluates their own situation as far as playing this game.
There are always so many conjectures as to the issue of any event that, whatever the outcome, there will always be people to say: 'I said then that it would be so'
Audiences like to be challenged and to be actively involved and try to guess an outcome.
One cannot guarantee that if we have good intelligence, good policy will necessarily follow. But we can guarantee that if we have poor intelligence, poor policy will necessarily follow.
