A recent study indicates that sports pundits owe more of their popularity to confidence than accuracy of prediction. As the UPI reports," Pundits get a bigger audience via confidence and the excitement it generates, the study authors said."
According to the research the predictions of professional sports pundits (you know, the guys getting paid to write about sports) are only 47% accurate. That's lower than a 50-50 accuracy result you'd presumably get from tossing a coin. And it's only two percentage points higher than the 45% accuracy level obtained by amateur sports pundits (you know, the guys who don't get paid and just do it for fun or love of the game).
Confidence impresses an audience, even if the confident speaker is wrong, and I daresay, even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Consider political pundits, the people who are paid to write and opine about politics and current events. Isn't their confidence more valued than their accuracy? Look at the confident predictions by some of a Romney victory in 2012. Did their being wrong hurt their careers?
Specifically, consider the confident voices telling the GOP to pander to Hispanics and support amnesty. Confidence or accuracy?
If you'd like to read more about the sports punditry research, here is a link: Sports pundits are more popular if they are confident, not accurate UPI, May 31, 2013.
And consider donating to VDARE.COM (click here) , where we strive to base our confidence on accuracy, and not the other way around.