Virtually all the discussion of this case is now an example of the hindsight bias (or the "I knew it all along' phenomenon"), which is the tendency to recall events as more predictable than they really were. I can definitely see it in my own thinking. (β I have explained what hindsight bias means in this case in my final edit below.)
That Gabby was a DV victim+ terrified of her partner ... that Brian was "a dangerous psychopath"* ... that this couple's voyage was bound to end in tragedy ... all these things are "OBVIOUS" mostly in hindsight.
What the Moab police should have done, what various onlookers and witnesses should have done, what Gabby's and Brian's friends and families should have done ... all these things seem crystal clear now (even though we all have wildly different opinions about them).
I'm absolutely NOT saying there were no red flags, nor am I saying that we can't learn a great deal from this. There were, and we can. But it's crucial to recognize that our criticism NOW of what people did THEN is based on things we know NOW that we didn't know THEN.
(+EDITING TO ADD: I am a DV survivor, but I didn't know that this was going to wind up as murder. If YOU knew, great.)
*EDITING TO CLARIFY: Brian was not diagnosed as a "psychpath," nor did he appear to be so IMHO. I waa quoting the armchair psychiatrists who are so certain they know the details of this case from following it on social media.
βββββββββββββ·
β EDITING ONE LAST TIME to explain what is meant by "hindsight bias" in this case.
The media broke the story of Gabby's disappearance in mid-September. So, pretty obviously, there was a problem ... which is why we (the public) found out about it at all.
But back on Aug. 12, 2021, when Moab LE pulled the couple over ... or on August 17, when Brian flew to Florida ... or on Aug. 27, when there was an incident at Merry Piglets ... etc. etc. ... it was not "obvious" that Brian was going to kill, or had killed, Gabby.
Were there red flags of a dangerous dynamic with this couple? Yes, there were, as I wrote in my OP.
But was it "crystal clear" that it was going to end in homicide? No, it was not... AT THAT TIME, TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
We (the public, following the story as it unfolded in the media and social media) had the benefit of coming into a situation that had already become alarming, and hearing from multiple witn
... keep reading on reddit β‘You made the best decision given the information you had then and your condition then. You did the best you could, given who you were then. No one goes, "okay here are three options I have, let me choose the worst or the second best." We always try our best to make decisions, given our state, that we perceive as ones that will yield the best results. Uncertainties cannot be done away with. We can definitely learn from past decisions and the outcomes but that's about it. Wishing we had done something differently doesn't help much other than causing unnecessary emotional strains. Cut that thought process right at the outset.
I started investing in feb. 2020, just a few days the pandemic hit really hard. As I was completely new to it, very inexperienced and with 0 financial education and investing knowledge, there was a lot of uncertainty and fear and I swing traded some small positions as the red and green days intertwined. I made some gains and some losses and in the end I'm net + ~70%. I learned a ton, realized some gains and I happy and grateful for that, however there's a bitter feel that I missed a great opportunity - significant market crash combined with unlimited QE. Had I known what I know now, I'd go all in on TQQQ (or call leaps) and/or SPY calls and let it sit.
Observing things from this time distance with hindsight bias, moves that market did seems very clear and very logical. I wonder, did experienced investors and those with background in finance, really have that clear of a vision of a road ahead, at that particular moment in time - April through September 2020? Do you have a hindsight bias now?
After a battle, everyone is a general.
Whenever I get stricken by the overwhelming dread of shoulda coulda woulda, I find it good to remember this powerful quote by mathematician, statistician, trader and economist Nassim Taleb;
βThe idea that the future is unpredictable is undermined everyday by the ease with which the past is explained.
Indeed, our tendency to construct and believe coherent narratives of the past makes it difficult for us to accept the limits of our forecasting abilities.
Everything makes sense in hindsight. We cannot suppress the powerful intuition that that what makes sense in hindsight today was predictable yesterday.
The illusion that we understand the past fosters overconfidence in our ability to predict the future.β
-Nassim Taleb, extract from βThe Black Swanβ.
Hopefully this can help you shed some perspective too. Goodnight homies.
Need to get this off my chest, I tried to post on the daily thread as I don't want to add to the FUD (but it was removed for being too long - so I have no choice). Maybe some people will agree with me, maybe some people will call me a shill. I guess that's a risk I'll have to take.
The last 24hrs has really changed how I perceive this group. I thought (and trusted) the community knew what they were talking about. The endless DD posts, peer reviewed, seemed to be more than just confirmation bias. I'll be honest, I struggle to keep up with it all as I have a busy life, so I trusted the hive mind to reject nonsense and promote what is valid.
But man, the last day has shown just how weak this is.
- Case in point 1, the endless debate over the "more than the majority of votes" comment in the meeting. How did nobody know beforehand that this was normal language to confirm the meeting is "valid". The lack of any awareness of how a shareholders meeting is conducted by people representing 25,000 viewers on the stream was not good. Anyway, we were told they were non-binding votes, so why would this "quorum" even be necessary?
- Case in point 2, the endless "everyone must vote, it'll prove everything" narrative on here for weeks/months. Then the votes are finally announced and everyone scratches their heads as the votes are <100% of the total. Hours later, the narrative changes to "ah, but they're not allowed to state a volume >100%". So why did NOBODY say this before the numbers were released. None of the so-called experts on here saw this coming, despite claims that it's completely the correct and normal way.
All this stuff is hindsight logic / confirmation bias. We can't just ignore the mistakes and errors and then continue to blindly accept the next set of "facts" like this. We've shown just how little we actually know. What we need are people who actually know what TF they are talking about. I know I don't, so I don't make outlandish claims that get people excited. This place is too keen to promote guesswork as fact, and too busy re-posting the same shitposts/memes 20 times so that the feed is far too fast-paced to actually take stock of what is really happening.
Despite this, I will HODL. Because as I've always said, I own some lottery tickets. Until they are worth zero, they are still live.
I guess a lot of fellow apes are running hot right now, so I'll mention: Happy to take criticism, but be kind. You know exactly why, and if you don't, you're
... keep reading on reddit β‘Unlike the characters in Three Houses, we the players have the luxury of hindsight. The luxury of knowing there are multiple routes (and that it's a "good ending" with each of them), virtually infinite amount of time and resources to get to know all characters (their true intents and troubles), a birdseye view of the story, and complete emotional detachment of the situations happening (in the end we are just looking at a screen, y'know). But people have the audacity to claim that taking a non-violent route is the obvious choice in their situation. That if Edelgard was really as smart as people claim she is, then she would have known that. Edelgard, who quite literally had a torturous adolescence very much due to the hierarchy of crests, who very well knows the suffering crests can inflict on the people of Fodlan (something we very well do not know). Of course, this "info" is very well not new, this perspective has very well been considered. All this is is food for thought.
"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon or creeping determinism, is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were." - Wikipedia
Stop beating yourself up because you didn't buy X coin when it was X amount. You didn't know it was going to blow up. No one did. The people who claim they knew, didn't. They got lucky.
Don't beat yourself up when you do buy coin X and it dips hard. This is crypto, and new opportunities are always possible. Carry out research, DCA, never FOMO and remember the well prepared Tortoise always beats the Hare.
Iβve noticed that many of the problems critics(usually reactors) of the anime(specifically Subaru) have can be solved if they didnβt have hindsight bias.
They donβt seem to realize that thinking at your best in the heat of the moment is very difficult for anybody, especially when under inhuman amounts of pressure and stress.
Re:Zero is a story that considers a characters mental state in their decision making. I donβt know why people expect characters to make the best possible choices.
Itβs not the only problem, but itβs a big one that I havenβt seen brought up enough. Do you guys agree?
Hi investors (in their 50s or 60s)
Often people subscribe to (and follow) certain investment ideas in their youth, but realize late in their life that it wasn't the right strategy to take.
What are the different lessons you've learned about personal finance, that you wish you knew when you were young, and now it is too late?
I'm conducting research on ways hindsight bias can be reduced at the Erasmus School of Economics. I would highly appreciate it if you filled out my survey so that I can increase the validity of my results!
It only takes 5 minutes on average!
https://erasmusuniversity.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0f9JbRY1qDgNMb4
As a Rafa stan, I keep wondering if this is the year he might have lost the French, and this year was certainly no exception. He IS the undisputed god of clay, but he was in shaky form and the circumstances were out of wack- we all know how heβs a stickler for precise conditions.
Most people on here making fun of people for thinking Djokovic might have won are blinded by what actually happened. Yes of course itβs probably time I stop doubting Rafa lmao BUT that doesnt mean I wonβt count Djokovic out any time he plays Roland Garros.
Idk if my point came across at all well but I just think people are suffering from hindsight bias when in fact most of us were probably doubting he would win at the start- very few thought he would cruise through a draw of Zverev, Thiem, Nole the way he did.
For me itβs the Wall is robbing the Wizards narrative as if he didnβt earn that contract as if the Wizards shouldβve let him hit FA. Sure theyβve been screwed by the Cap hit and his injuries but itβs not like it was something they would know at the time of the deal
TL;DR for reasonable folks and plebs who get their news from article titles and canβt even engage with segmented/bolded-for-emphasis posts:
- Regular communication from DH would remedy so much of our problems
- The silver spoon portion of the community who doesnβt understand this/basic heuristics contribute nothing but outrage when itβs convenient for them
- I anxiously await more absolutist posts trying to tear each other down and distract from the more central issue of how DH engages us
Details below.
Perhaps this post will gain zero traction, but Iβm getting pretty burnt out about all the folks complaining and tearing each other down based on misdirected arguments of convenience, missing the key/central point of why this cycle of complaining repeats itself: DH has long given zero fucks about basic communication, which is reflective of either frank ineptitude or indifference.
BF was amazing, and then it was poor, preceded by a great random Halloween event. Xmas was underwhelming, then it was pretty good even if the hero wasnβt pure god tier. We get a string of strong PvP heroes (Ruda and Uni) and then a sudden influx of PvE heroes. We are frustrated by a feature for a year, and then they suddenly announce its changing. Whoop, surprise event using a particular resource (theyβve been a bit better about this)!
All of what happens we only know in retrospect, and usually only because of the very hard work of people doing analysis. Non-DH employees spending a lot of time doing analysis (with whale account donations oftentimes). Thatβs a bit strange to me. When you lead by omission, you are never culpable for anything.
So we keep offering feedback for what we want, which is great, but is a bandaid to a bigger problem that will perpetuate over time. Communication is the only remedy, and it takes time for that investment to bear fruit. They donβt need to listen to every crazy idea of ours, just like we donβt need every single detail ahead of time. Donβt get hyperbolic about this. General thoughts; cardinal directions. Any good and sensible company does this. Otherwise this game isnβt just a casino, itβs the stock market too.
To the βIβm sitting pretty so Iβm going to project onto othersβ people:
Letβs stop being ignorant. There was entitlement crying during the HS event because people wanted OP out the gates (u/Geedeepee91 and others did hard work to point this out), when the only legitimate frustration in my eyes w
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Mine would be Al Pacino for turning down Pretty Woman. So a rich john transforms a street whore into a princess? That premise sounds like box office poison that no amount of Disney/Touchstone sheen could overcome.
As for Apocalypse Now, that part almost killed Martin Sheen so Pacino dodged yet another bullet there as well.
He was white hot at the beginning of 2016 and having him main event against his former shield brother and best friend in Roman reigns at wrestlemania or even make it a triple threat match with Roman hhh and Ambrose would have been box office. Imo WWE deciding to not put over Ambrose at the royal rumble that year and roadblock was a huge miss opportunity by booking. Thoughts?
Just going to get right to the point - virtually all of Theo's (and Jed's) moves made sense in the moment (pardon the typos).
- Signing Heyward to a massive contract - Heyward is one of the main reasons why WAR numbers can be a little misleading in certain cases. Besides his rookie season (and his first career at bat against the Cubs where he looked like the next Griffey), he never had an OPS+ over 117. I think this is one of the worst moves Theo's made at the time of the signing, but when a conservative organization like the Cardinals offered him more money overall (IIRC), it's understandable. After his age 25 season, it was more than fair to assume that Heyward, at worst, would be somewhat close to the 2012-2015 versions of him -- and then when you add in the glove and intangibles + public speaking skills, the signing overall made way more sense than say giving a 29 year old Carl Crawford a massive 7 year deal.
- The Chapman trade - I was shocked when I heard that we traded Torres and even more shocked when I learned that it was a rental. Because of the WS victory, it's a wash. While I know it's kind of stupid to judge a trade on whether or not we won game 7 of the 2016 World Series, we got a title out of it. This one hurts badly but I can guarantee you that the 90s Indians would have traded one of their young studs if they got a title out of it.
- The Soler trade - Davis was great for the entire 2017 regular season and Soler was not a plus fielder by any stretch of the imagination. If Soler had a glove, I'm confident that we would have held onto to him and let him develop. but due to being an NL team, he had to go when we already had Schwarber, who had more potential in the NL.
- Trading Eloy - Like Heyward and WAR, Q is a case of a player that got overrated due to his contract, and that contract was incredibly sexy two years ago. I don't claim to have watched a lot of White Sox baseball this decade (and their TV ratings suggest their fans haven't either), but it wasn't hard to get talked into this trade. 3.5 years of a bargain contract for a two legit prospects - it's not like this was the Shelby Miller trade that was idiotic the day it happened. I can't blame Theo for Q suddenly looking like he lost 3 mph on his fastball the second he got here - maybe there were warning signs I was unaware of, I don't know. As for Eloy and Cease: they were trade chips, nothing more. Eloy isn't an NL player and Cease was going to get blocked
Hi. I was wondering if anyone knows any ways that can make studying less boring? I'm in this bad habit of only studying for mid-terms, finals, etc. the day before the test. I only ever review the material once and when I try to review it again I get bored and say things like "I already know this". How do I go about studying without feeling of "hindsight". Take a long break in-between? Test myself? try different methods of studying? What has worked for other people
Otto von Bismarck is remembered as a realpolitik genius who made a practical / tactical decision to wage 3 separate wars over the course of a decade to unify Germany (Danish War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War). However, how much of this view of him is a result of our desire to fit things into neat narratives. Were these wars simply fought out of necessity and simply had the effect of unifying Germany absent, in spite of, or regardless of, any grand strategy of fighting them for that explicit purpose?
Rant post. Sorry for aggravated tones in advance. The average player gets extremely defensive and offended by mill and I honestly don't understand their perspectives.
There are scenarios where it makes sense for it to be a reasonable concern. "I built my deck poorly to have 1 win condition, no recursion for it, and lots of tutors" would be someone I could see being bothered by a mill effect. If someone is playing a deck with Sensei's Divining Top, Yuriko, Aminatou- these decks can be reasonably annoyed.
But more often, even in the most casual of battlecruiser games, it's "you made me mill 2 off the top. Those were the two I would have drawn (randomly) and now I don't." Then proceed to draw a new card at random, equally likely to be as good or bad as the previously unknown cards. They are bothered in hindsight because they "lost" cards but still then draw other cards they chose to put into their deck.
Additionally, this introduces more information to you far more than anyone else- because it is your deck and you know it best. "That's unlikely, I just milled 2 of my artifact/enchantment removals. Now I know when counterspelling that that's probably there to stay" is a correct response, not announcing to the table "I can't respond to any of your threats because of that guy".
Sorry for the rant, TLDR is to learn basic statistics and what some simple logical fallacies are.
Please just stop blaming the players because they treated this event like every other event since global launch. Itβs easy to blame the players after the fact now that you know that they werenβt supposed to start at the same time, but as the event started, there was no information given on the tournament starting later than normal. As of the launch of the event, everyone thought the leaderboards would have started normally, and when a dev was asked if it was a bug he said to play normally instead of informing the players about the leaderboards. The first information we got of the leaderboards starting later was after the outrage and the official statement was posted hours after.
I see plenty of people shocked by the Saints going for it. I personally think it was the right decision. You have Drew Brees and you need just 2 yards to win the game. I think the difference between going 80-ish yards and 50 yards with 2 minutes to go is negligible enough to warrant going for it.
