The Black Swan-like Assumption

I never liked assumptions, especially when it came to things that matter. Still, often in my field, we need to make at least some assumptions about the data at hand and the models we use. In life, assumptions are also necessary at times to enable certain efficiencies. If we were to start with a blank canvas every time we were to talk to someone, we'd have to introduce every single term used, to ensure that we are on the same page. Also, we'd have to ascertain the various values, concepts, and anything else that would constitute a frame of reference. Most of all that is skipped, by making assumptions about the other person's understanding of these mental objects and their experience with at least some of them.

The problem with assumptions arises when we make assumptions that don't hold true. Whenever we assume that something is valid while it's not, we make a grave error in our reasoning, even if many times it goes unnoticed for some time. Nevertheless, this error may still have negative implications. Sometimes we come to realize that and correct our mistakes, but it's not always the case.

The primary problematic assumption we have made (and many people still make) is that if someone is good at something, they are either good overall, or caring about us, or less of a threat to the whole. After all, if someone has contributed to the whole through something, how can that person harm others? Of course, we may derive this logic from myths and stories, where truly benign people were involved. Since most people in the world are good (even if they don't always show it), we often carry this reasoning to the world at large without much thought. After all, if it works most of the time, why not use this heuristic always? Well, the thing is that in the cases when it doesn't hold true, it's detrimental (e.g., when someone is a great researcher but has too strong an ambition and eventually becomes a professor and eventually a dean, even if he doesn't have the necessary mentoring or leadership skills; or when someone is a great technology businessperson and for similar reasons strives to accrue as much power as possible). This situation is akin to what N. N. Taleb called a "black swan" when applied to specific individuals or organizations. A black swan is an event that's quite unlikely but has enormous repercussions. So, when someone who is exceptional in something and yet has ill-will and anti-social tendencies gets perceived as good (based on our previously mentioned assumption), then we are in trouble! That person may leverage our acceptance of their actions and our classification of him as benign, even when their end game is anything but.

Perhaps nowadays, more than ever, it's essential to exercise critical thinking and discernment. Things are not always what they seem, and the mistakes we make when characterizing certain people, putting our trust in them, may prove to be serious ones, even if they don't happen that often. The problem is that if many of us make the same mistake in judgment, the effects accumulate and make the mistake even more serious. Our trust in the efficacy of lock-downs, for instance, although it was never scientifically proven, has cost many people their livelihoods, and the organizations that are still operational are suffering from this measure. This example is just one of many, and if you examine the situation closely, I'm sure you'll find several more.

The thing is that mistakes can be a great source of insight and knowledge that can transform us. We don’t have to be victims of the mistakes we’ve made, though we need to accept them and learn from them. Then, we can carry on and make sure we don’t repeat them. As the old saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!” Cheers.