This is one of my pet peeves, people who boast about stumbling upon the correct solution and/or being first to something, but can't justify or backup their claim. Even worse is when they do the research afterwards to attempt to retrofit an answer. A derivative of this is when you have/know only one thing, but can't justify it in the absence of knowledge of the alternatives, but you still rally for it as if you were knowledgeable.
In math, if you only write the correct answer, you'll get a zero for not showing your work. In debate and discussions, there can zero, one, or more than one correct solution to a topic, and "showing your work" is often more valuable than having an answer, and answers can be right or wrong explicitly depending on your work.
Totally! I was one of these people in high school math! I remember clearly thinking "but i got the right answer >:(" and now as a professional engineer i reminisce about people who want to know why you are right.
Nate Silver is a statistical analysis expert, not particularly an election expert.
> Yet, at almost every turn along the path of the 2016 election, I was far more accurate than Nate Silver.
Really, for all the elections that year? What about 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014?
> Is Nate Silver's expert opinion still more valuable than mine?
Where can we see your historical set of outcome predictions to validate their superiority?
> Is expert opinion valuable even if it is right no more often than coin flipping?
Nate Silver has been right more often than coin flipping.