The first consequence of this asymmetry is that, in people’s minds, the relationship between the past and the future does not learn from the relationship between the past and the past previous to it. There is a blind spot: when we think of tomorrow we do not frame it in terms of what we thought about yesterday on the day before yesterday. Because of this introspective defect we fail to learn about the difference between our past predictions and the subsequent outcomes. When we think of tomorrow, we just project it as another yesterday.
This small blind spot has other manifestations. Go to the primate section of the Bronx Zoo where you can see our close relatives in the happy primate family leading their own busy social lives. You can also see masses of tourists laughing at the caricature of humans that the lower primates represent. Now imagine being a member of a higher-level species (say a “real” philosopher, a truly wise person), far more sophisticated than the human primates. You would certainly laugh at the people laughing at the nonhuman primates. Clearly, to those people amused by the apes, the idea of a being who would look down on them the way they look down on the apes cannot immediately come to their minds—if it did, it would elicit self-pity. They would stop laughing.
Accordingly, an element in the mechanics of how the human mind learns from the past makes us believe in definitive solutions—yet not consider that those who preceded us thought that they too had definitive solutions. We laugh at others and we don’t realize that someone will be just as justified in laughing at us on some not too remote day. Such a realization would entail the recursive, or second-order, thinking that I mentioned in the Prologue; we are not good at it.
This mental block about the future has not yet been investigated and labeled by psychologists, but it appears to resemble autism. Some autistic subjects can possess high levels of mathematical or technical intelligence. Their social skills are defective, but that is not the root of their problem. Autistic people cannot put themselves in the shoes of others, cannot view the world from their standpoint. They see others as inanimate objects, like machines, moved by explicit rules. They cannot perform such simple mental operations as “he knows that I don’t know that I know,” and it is this inability that impedes their social skills. (Interestingly, autistic subjects, regardless of their “intelligence,” also exhibit an inability to comprehend uncertainty.)
Just as autism is called “mind blindness,” this inability to think dynamically, to position oneself with respect to a future observer, we should call “future blindness.”
Prediction, Misprediction, and Happiness
I searched the literature of cognitive science for any research on “future blindness” and found nothing. But in the literature on happiness I did find an examination of our chronic errors in prediction that will make us happy.
This prediction error works as follows. You are about to buy a new car. It is going to change your life, elevate your status, and make your commute a vacation. It is so quiet that you can hardly tell if the engine is on, so you can listen to Rachmaninoff’s nocturnes on the highway. This new car will bring you to a permanently elevated plateau of contentment. People will think, Hey, he has a great car, every time they see you. Yet you forget that the last time you bought a car, you also had the same expectations. You do not anticipate that the effect of the new car will eventually wane and that you will revert to the initial condition, as you did last time. A few weeks after you drive your new car out of the showroom, it will become dull. If you had expected this, you probably would not have bought it.
You are about to commit a prediction error that you have already made. Yet it would cost so little to introspect!
Psychologists have studied this kind of misprediction with respect to both pleasant and unpleasant events. We overestimate the effects of both kinds of future events on our lives. We seem to be in a psychological predicament that makes us do so. This predicament is called “anticipated utility” by Danny Kahneman and “affective forecasting” by Dan Gilbert. The point is not so much that we tend to mispredict our future happiness, but rather that we do not learn recursively from past experiences. We have evidence of a mental block and distortions in the way we fail to learn from our past errors in projecting the future of our affective states.
We grossly overestimate the length of the effect of misfortune on our lives. You think that the loss of your fortune or current position will be devastating, but you are probably wrong. More likely, you will adapt to anything, as you probably did after past misfortunes. You may feel a sting, but it will not be as bad as you expect. This kind of misprediction may have a purpose: to motivate us to perform important acts (like buying new cars or getting rich) and to prevent us from taking certain unnecessary risks. And it is part of a more general problem: we humans are supposed to fool ourselves a little bit here and there. According to Trivers’s theory of self-deception, this is supposed to orient us favorably toward the future. But self-deception is not a desirable feature outside of its natural domain. It prevents us from taking some unnecessary risks—but we saw in Chapter 6 how it does not as readily cover a spate of modern risks that we do not fear because they are not vivid, such as investment risks, environmental dangers, or long-term security.
Helenus and the Reverse Prophecies
If you are in the business of being a seer, describing the future to other less-privileged mortals, you are judged on the merits of your predictions.
Helenus, in The Iliad, was a different kind of seer. The son of Priam and Hecuba, he was the cleverest man in the Trojan army. It was he who, under torture, told the Achaeans how they would capture Troy (apparently he didn’t predict that he himself would be captured). But this is not what distinguished him. Helenus, unlike other seers, was able to predict the past with great precision—without having been given any details of it. He predicted backward.
Our problem is not just that we do not know the future, we do not know much of the past either. We badly need someone like Helenus if we are to know history. Let us see how.
The Melting Ice Cube
Consider the following thought experiment borrowed from my friends Aaron Brown and Paul Wilmott:
Operation 1 (the melting ice cube): Imagine an ice cube and consider how it may melt over the next two hours while you play a few rounds of poker with your friends. Try to envision the shape of the resulting puddle.
Operation 2 (where did the water come from?): Consider a puddle of water on the floor. Now try to reconstruct in your mind’s eye the shape of the ice cube it may once have been. Note that the puddle may not have necessarily originated from an ice cube.
The second operation is harder. Helenus indeed had to have skills.
The difference between these two processes resides in the following. If you have the right models (and some time on your hands, and nothing better to do) you can predict with great precision how the ice cube will melt—this is a specific engineering problem devoid of complexity, easier than the one involving billiard balls. However, from the pool of water you can build infinite possible ice cubes, if there was in fact an ice cube there at all. The first direction, from the ice cube to the puddle, is called the forward process. The second direction, the backward process, is much, much more complicated. The forward process is generally used in physics and engineering; the backward process in nonrepeatable, nonexperimental historical approaches.
In a way, the limitations that prevent us from unfrying an egg also prevent us from reverse engineering history.
Now, let me increase the complexity of the forward-backward problem just a bit by assuming nonlinearity. Take what is generally called the “butterfly in India” paradigm from the discussion of Lorenz’s discovery in the previous chapter. As we have seen, a small input in a complex system can lead to nonrandom large results, depending on very special conditions. A single butterfly flapping its wings in New Delhi may be the certain cause of a hurricane in North Carolina, though the hurricane may take place a couple of years later. However, given the o
bservation of a hurricane in North Carolina, it is dubious that you could figure out the causes with any precision: there are billions of billions of such small things as wing-flapping butterflies in Timbuktu or sneezing wild dogs in Australia that could have caused it. The process from the butterfly to the hurricane is greatly simpler than the reverse process from the hurricane to the potential butterfly.
Confusion between the two is disastrously widespread in common culture. This “butterfly in India” metaphor has fooled at least one filmmaker. For instance, Happenstance (a.k.a. The Beating of a Butterfly’s Wings), a French-language film by one Laurent Firode, meant to encourage people to focus on small things that can change the course of their lives. Hey, since a small event (a petal falling on the ground and getting your attention) can lead to your choosing one person over another as a mate for life, you should focus on these very small details. Neither the filmmaker nor the critics realized that they were dealing with the backward process; there are trillions of such small things in the course of a simple day, and examining all of them lies outside of our reach.
Once Again, Incomplete Information
Take a personal computer. You can use a spreadsheet program to generate a random sequence, a succession of points we can call a history. How? The computer program responds to a very complicated equation of a nonlinear nature that produces numbers that seem random. The equation is very simple: if you know it, you can predict the sequence. It is almost impossible, however, for a human being to reverse engineer the equation and predict further sequences. I am talking about a simple one-line computer program (called the “tent map”) generating a handful of data points, not about the billions of simultaneous events that constitute the real history of the world. In other words, even if history were a nonrandom series generated by some “equation of the world,” as long as reverse engineering such an equation does not seem within human possibility, it should be deemed random and not bear the name “deterministic chaos.” Historians should stay away from chaos theory and the difficulties of reverse engineering except to discuss general properties of the world and learn the limits of what they can’t know.
This brings me to a greater problem with the historian’s craft. I will state the fundamental problem of practice as follows: while in theory randomness is an intrinsic property, in practice, randomness is incomplete information, what I called opacity in Chapter 1.
Nonpractitioners of randomness do not understand the subtlety. Often, in conferences when they hear me talk about uncertainty and randomness, philosophers, and sometimes mathematicians, bug me about the least relevant point, namely whether the randomness I address is “true randomness” or “deterministic chaos” that masquerades as randomness. A true random system is in fact random and does not have predictable properties. A chaotic system has entirely predictable properties, but they are hard to know. So my answer to them is dual.
a) There is no functional difference in practice between the two since we will never get to make the distinction—the difference is mathematical, not practical. If I see a pregnant woman, the sex of her child is a purely random matter to me (a 50 percent chance for either sex)—but not to her doctor, who might have done an ultrasound. In practice, randomness is fundamentally incomplete information.
b) The mere fact that a person is talking about the difference implies that he has never made a meaningful decision under uncertainty—which is why he does not realize that they are indistinguishable in practice.
Randomness, in the end, is just unknowledge. The world is opaque and appearances fool us.
What They Call Knowledge
One final word on history.
History is like a museum where one can go to see the repository of the past, and taste the charm of olden days. It is a wonderful mirror in which we can see our own narratives. You can even track the past using DNA analyses. I am fond of literary history. Ancient history satisfies my desire to build my own self-narrative, my identity, to connect with my (complicated) Eastern Mediterranean roots. I even prefer the accounts of older, patently less accurate books to modern ones. Among the authors I’ve reread (the ultimate test of whether you like an author is if you’ve reread him) the following come to mind: Plutarch, Livy, Suetonius, Diodorus Siculus, Gibbon, Carlyle, Renan, and Michelet. These accounts are patently substandard, compared to today’s works; they are largely anecdotal, and full of myths. But I know this.
History is useful for the thrill of knowing the past, and for the narrative (indeed), provided it remains a harmless narrative. One should learn under severe caution. History is certainly not a place to theorize or derive general knowledge, nor is it meant to help in the future, without some caution. We can get negative confirmation from history, which is invaluable, but we get plenty of illusions of knowledge along with it.
This brings me back once again to Menodotus and the treatment of the turkey problem and how to not be a sucker for the past. The empirical doctor’s approach to the problem of induction was to know history without theorizing from it. Learn to read history, get all the knowledge you can, do not frown on the anecdote, but do not draw any causal links, do not try to reverse engineer too much—but if you do, do not make big scientific claims. Remember that the empirical skeptics had respect for custom: they used it as a default, a basis for action, but not for more than that. This clean approach to the past they called epilogism.*
But most historians have another opinion. Consider the representative introspection What Is History? by Edward Hallett Carr. You will catch him explicitly pursuing causation as a central aspect of his job. You can even go higher up: Herodotus, deemed to be the father of the subject, defined his purpose in the opening of his work:
To preserve a memory of the deeds of the Greeks and barbarians, “and in particular, beyond everything else, to give a cause [emphasis mine] to their fighting one another.”
You see the same with all theoreticians of history, whether Ibn Khaldoun, Marx, or Hegel. The more we try to turn history into anything other than an enumeration of accounts to be enjoyed with minimal theorizing, the more we get into trouble. Are we so plagued with the narrative fallacy?†
We may have to wait for a generation of skeptical-empiricist historians capable of understanding the difference between a forward process and a reverse one.
Just as Popper attacked the historicists in their making claims about the future, I have just presented the weakness of the historical approach in knowing the past itself.
After this discussion about future (and past) blindness, let us see what to do about it. Remarkably, there are extremely practical measures we can take. We will explore this next.
* Yogi Berra might have a theory of epilogism with his saying, “You can observe a lot by just watching.”
† While looking at the past it would be a good idea to resist naïve analogies. Many people have compared the United States today to Ancient Rome, both from a military standpoint (the destruction of Carthage was often invoked as an incentive for the destruction of enemy regimes) and from a social one (the endless platitudinous warnings of the upcoming decline and fall). Alas, we need to be extremely careful in transposing knowledge from a simple environment that is closer to type 1, like the one we had in antiquity, to today’s type 2, complex system, with its intricate webs of casual links. Another error is to draw casual conclusions from the absence of nuclear war, since, invoking the Casanova argument of Chapter 8, I would repeat that we would not be here had a nuclear war taken place, and it is not a good idea for us to derive a “cause” when our survival is conditioned on that cause.
Chapter Thirteen
APPELLES THE PAINTER, OR WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU CANNOT PREDICT?*
You should charge people for advice—My two cents here—Nobody knows anything, but, at least, he knows it—Go to parties
ADVICE IS CHEAP, VERY CHEAP
It is not a good habit to stuff one’s text with quotations from prominent thinkers, except to make fun of them or provide a h
istorical reference. They “make sense,” but well-sounding maxims force themselves on our gullibility and do not always stand up to empirical tests. So I chose the following statement by the überphilosopher Bertrand Russell precisely because I disagree with it.
The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice. If you take your children for a picnic on a doubtful day, they will demand a dogmatic answer as to whether it will be fine or wet, and be disappointed in you when you cannot be sure. …
But so long as men are not trained [emphasis mine] to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets … For the learning of every virtue there is an appropriate discipline, and for the learning of suspended judgment the best discipline is philosophy.
The reader may be surprised that I disagree. It is hard to disagree that the demand for certainty is an intellectual vice. It is hard to disagree that we can be led astray by some cocksure prophet. Where I beg to differ with the great man is that I do not believe in the track record of advice-giving “philosophy” in helping us deal with the problem; nor do I believe that virtues can be easily taught; nor do I urge people to strain in order to avoid making a judgment. Why? Because we have to deal with humans as humans. We cannot teach people to withhold judgment; judgments are embedded in the way we view objects. I do not see a “tree;” I see a pleasant or an ugly tree. It is not possible without great, paralyzing effort to strip these small values we attach to matters. Likewise, it is not possible to hold a situation in one’s head without some element of bias. Something in our dear human nature makes us want to believe; so what?
The Black Swan Page 27
