Not thoughtfully written and shallowly propagandistic. It joins so much hype and adds little to the brimming pot. The last couple of chapters are more digestible, but still doesn't do much beyond illuminating the very basics of PA. Here's a bit of my review for book club:
I’ll start with positives: Love the suggestion that marketing departments that manufacture quasi-medical data should have to deal with it in a substantive way. That is a solution I haven’t heard proposed yet, but what if HIPAA, FERPA, etc. and all those “cumbersome bureaucratic” measures could weigh down every advertising outfit and data brokerage firm and social media giant that is able to manufacture sensitive data about people outside their domain? “You made it, you manage it.” (Author’s italics.) (Chapter 2, Good Prediction, Bad Prediction)
Another important caveat he does actually cover is the following: there can be heightened human trust in technical systems (as with judges and parole boards in Chapter 2, Machine Risk Without Measure). “What may render judges better informed could also sway them toward less active observation and thought, tempting them to defer to the technology...and grant it undue credence." So we can say that automated decision support systems can actually undermine the likelihood for the humans you’re organizing to interact in the way that you are trying to prompt them to.
So my substantive suggestion is more about how we want to treat “data science”. Based on what I’m gathering from this book, I suggest that people who practice predictive analytics should be called “mathematicians”, “statisticians”, or “predictive analysts”. As Siegel himself says, “PA’s mission is to engineer solutions,” and “Whatever works.” It seems to be about finding correlative relationships that help figure out how to get the right people to see the right ads. (But let’s be real — that’s largely what data scientists are spending their talent on.) It doesn’t sound like they’re doing science. It’s just a method that may be used in science, but is largely used elsewhere as well.
Siegel provides a helpful foil for me to make this argument. Because it was part of the established practice of science, the scientific study done by Gilbert and Karahalios of stock market and blog post anxiety measures received criticism until it found a way to establish causation, or predictive direction. The work that statisticians/predictive analysts are doing doesn’t come under this scrutiny if they are in business. The assertion that we don’t care what’s under the hood because the “black box” just gives us the predictions is anti-scientific. Predictive analysts don’t have to start with a theory, or even come to a theory when they find relationships in the data.
Sure, this method can be part of actual science, but it clouds up the meaning to call them scientists because they’re just doing math in law enforcement, healthcare, insurance, and human resources, and so forth. But calling it science artificially colors what is being done in these different domains — it’s possible that none of it is part of the scientific process because it may not ever be based on a theory, it may not be done in public or with the benefit of the scientific community’s oversight. It’s not necessarily building upon itself toward more insights.
Predictive analysts work towards enough prediction to make companies more money, predict more accidents, etc. But it doesn’t seem to ask why. It's not done as a search for how the world really works. PA is used to drive decisions, says Siegel. It’s a method that is about decision-making without wisdom or understanding. Siegel’s own repetition about the primacy of advertising assures me that as a method, it’s bound up with making profit in a way that even could undermine its ability to be used for science. “Benjamin Franklin forgot to include [advertising] when he proclaimed ’Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” (Chapter 1)
But it unfairly receives the automatic clout assigned to anything with the word “science” in it.