Fox-Like Characteristics vs Hedgehog-Like Characteristics Part 2

The fox vs hedgehog theory is not only used in successful predictions but also social life. The fox social characteristics are more suited to individuals who know lots of things about people and have a very active social life. But at the same time, these are acquaintances more than anything else, and not much is known about them. The hedgehog has a few friends and knows them intimately; in most cases, it would count to around four friends at most.

Fox-Like Characteristics

The characteristics Tetlock focussed on most where the traits of both animals in the way of thinking. Those most used in predicting the outcomes of events, most known by sports bettors or roulette players. What he discovered is that the Fox-like characteristics incorporate ideas from a wide range of disciplines he called a multidisciplinary trait. The fox also is also known for his adaptable trait and will try many approaches to make things work. He is willing to adapt and accept mistakes, which means the fox is self-critical. Plus, he is tolerant of complexity, able to accept the complexity, while also cautious and empirical; his preferred theory is to observe.

Hedgehog-Like Characteristics

The hedgehog is more specialised and sceptical of outsiders and unshakeable; they use new data to refine. The other main characteristic is their stubbornness and blaming all mistakes directly on poor luck. Order seeking is another that defines the hedgehog thinker and once a pattern is detected it remains uninformed, plus it rarely changes position and is confident. Ideological is a trait of the hedgehog and its approach towards predictive problems that fit in with the view of the wider world.

Predictive Traits Are You the Fox or Hedgehog?

Fox-like traits would mean you incorporate all circumstances to adjust and refine your sports predictions before placing a bet. By reading the characteristics of each of the animals according to the analysis of Bayesian, it is easy to recognise the connection. It uses a process of assessing the thinking pattern of two different ways of thinking as well as the impact it has on correct prediction. Thousands of tests offered both new evidence as well as the effect it has on outcomes.

Getting it wrong sometimes are inevitable, and the fox-like approach does not imply infallibility, although knowing the characteristics of both ways of thinking could help you improve your betting skills. The main question remains do we know what will or could happen or can we find a way to know precisely what is likely to happen or will happen. Arguing the macroscopic scale for online betters does not change the analysis, there may be no theory of probability yet only a quantum one and a multitude of betting histories might all happen at the same time. Even in a simple coin toss, the result is only certain once the outcome is observed, and we still searching for a way to predict that outcome more accurately.