(Gig Harbor, WA) I’m pleased to report that I have finally figured out how to do more with our www.nostracodeus.com project than simply look at language and count words, see which ones are rising, and which ones not (and from there imply future).
The problem is (I can’t tell anyone (but chief programmer Grady and Chris McCleary who uses the technology as a tool in the forecasts from the www.nationaldreamcenter.com.
Reason? It may be patentable.
After writing it up and sending it to Grady (Can we code this?) the (greedy, capitalistic) thought occurred to me: Is there a buck to be made in this?
I mean, of course, besides the obvious: When we get tools of futuring built that really work, will we be able to make oodles of money by playing options?
That’s the obvious revenue stream, of course. But, there’s another one: Namely using the technique to forecast events on behalf of government. “Here comes what looks like an earthquake is such-and-such area in this timeframe, and a revolution over in this country, in this different timeframe…”
It’s all Holy Grail stuff of seers through the ages, but I think I’ve reduced it to mathematical mumbo-jumbo, so we get to see how creative Grady is in writing math in a report writer (or as additional fields in the database, makes no difference to me where, just that the calculations are done).
So that’s pretty cool.
Dream Do Matter, But an Old Theory Problem Arises
Meantime, Chris has to be gloating about the “hit” from the National Dream Center’s forecasting efforts. From an overnight email:
Non-PA Headline #13 said, “Chaos ensues in Dallas in wake of …Bomb threat at Dallas/Ft Worth Interntl Airport.”
Behold a bomb threat on a plane from Dallas-FtWorth on August 24th:
You need to click over to this page and read the scoring discussion Chris put together.
We’ve known that something was coming with Dallas – as we discussed that quite openly in our Sunday Special: Quakes, Dallas, and Damn Futuring.
So is that it for the Dallas pop?
Maybe – but maybe not.
This is an old problem of futuring that I described a long time ago that may be thought of as “event masking.” OK< two problems, then…
First: Let’s say you have evolved a new way of predicting the future. (There are several such techniques, including ours).
And let’s say that you see data that includes words like “subsidence” “coastal” “cities” and “water.”
And then you write up a futuring forecast that includes all these terms and reflects the dire nature of whatever the worlds subsidence, coastal, and so forth, conjure up in the mind of the analyst.
Then you issue a forecast, and when it’s wrong (insofar as it doesn’t occur exactly as forecast) people become highly skeptical of all such forecasts….humans don’t score well in the probabilistic thinking realm. They love black/white, hard forecasts.
But the forecast was still good. The language basis might be right, but the interpretation can still be off.
So instead of states sinking beneath the waves, you might get a note from someone like our Winnipeg news analyst fellow who politely sends this:
Dear Mr. Ure,
It seems that Mexico City is not the only locale subsiding as groundwater reserves are depleted. Chinese researchers have released an open access paper this year that contends some regions in Beijing have shown accelerating rates of subsidence from 2003 to 2010 based upon satellite measurements which the researchers claim is due to excessive groundwater extraction.