Take a moment to think about what facts and trends will influence the election in Iowa. Guess. Right now the TV analysts are making guesses on who will win and who will beat expectations.
Are Trump people really just there for the show but will have vanished when it comes time to caucus?
But tomorrow morning the people who write articles and talk on TV will have some answers and they will talk as if it had been obvious all along. "Anyone could see it coming", they will say, and with the benefit of hindsight point out the evidence that justifies saying it was obvious that Hillary is a flawed candidate (if she underperforms) or evidence showing it was obvious that Sanders was simply too liberal (if Hillary wins.)
In hindsight, the past isn't merely known, it is obvious.
And this point I am making seems obvious, too, except that in real life it will be forgotten. I had 30 years experience as a financial advisor attempting to guide investors as we grope through the unfolding present so I have learned and re-learned that my clients and friends look back and say it was obvious that an investment would perform a certain way after it had happened. Anyone could see it coming that Apple would do well and Digital Computer would go bankrupt--after it happened. Anyone could see signs that inflation and bond yields would stay low, in hindsight.
So my short post today is to suggest that you stop for a moment right now, assay what you think will happen tonight in Iowa, note your indecisions, and jot down your prediction. You might be right. But what I am confident of is that tomorrow the pundits will be able to cite obvious reasons, clear as day, for whatever actually turns out to have happened.
Don't be fooled. It is a classic mental error to confuse a prediction of the future with a description of the past. Don't be impressed by someone on TV who is making that error and not realizing it. Or realizing it and not caring.
Are Trump people really just there for the show but will have vanished when it comes time to caucus?
Is Cruz actually going to do better than people think because there is a big unseen religious network, or will he do much worse than expected because Trump has been saying the same things more plainly and Rubio saying the same things with a prettier face?
Will Hillary's people actually turn out? Does Sanders have voters with the real fiery passion? Whose ground game is better? Will the snow come early?
Here is my point: They do not know.
 |
| Obvious winner |
In hindsight, the past isn't merely known, it is obvious.
And this point I am making seems obvious, too, except that in real life it will be forgotten. I had 30 years experience as a financial advisor attempting to guide investors as we grope through the unfolding present so I have learned and re-learned that my clients and friends look back and say it was obvious that an investment would perform a certain way after it had happened. Anyone could see it coming that Apple would do well and Digital Computer would go bankrupt--after it happened. Anyone could see signs that inflation and bond yields would stay low, in hindsight.
 |
| Bound to go down in flames |
Don't be fooled. It is a classic mental error to confuse a prediction of the future with a description of the past. Don't be impressed by someone on TV who is making that error and not realizing it. Or realizing it and not caring.
No comments:
Post a Comment