The field of International Relations (IR) is dominated by experts whose source of authority is opaque to the public. However, in 2005 Tetlock’s Expert Political Judgement revealed the inaccuracies...Show moreThe field of International Relations (IR) is dominated by experts whose source of authority is opaque to the public. However, in 2005 Tetlock’s Expert Political Judgement revealed the inaccuracies in expert predictions. As prediction is a defining feature of a maturing discipline, these results undermine the authority of IR experts. Tetlock found that accurate predictors “are moderates who factor conflicting considerations—in a flexible, weighted-averaging fashion—into their final judgments.” Six traits distinguish the cognitive style of these ‘foxes’ from their opposite, the ‘hedgehogs.’ This thesis converts these traits into a signal-analysis that can be used to determine the cognitive style of a piece of writing. This analysis is applied to a selection of six essays from the same source. The results generally corroborate Tetlock’s findings. Foxes make more modest predictions and avoid the pitfalls of overconfidence while hedgehogs make bolder claims which decreases their accuracy. It is also discovered that there is rigidity in the application of IR theory. Parsimonious applications of theory are favoured, which causes IR foxes to distance themselves from theory altogether. To restore experts’ IR authority, new theories need to be crafted which can integrate dissonant theories.Show less
