Uncharted
How to Map the Future Together
By Margaret Heffernan
Part 1. “Ambition Prediction”. False Profits
Human beings have a natural tendency to search for predictive patterns in unpredictable
environments.
Complication vs. Complexity. We can face, as human beings and through our organizations, overly
complicated situations, and our ability to analyze them in the small details is key. But when facing
complexity, where ambiguity reigns, we cease to be effective.
History proves our ambition to always “predict the future”. But it has never been really possible to do
so…
• Irvin Fisher: Analyzed national economies through the lens of money supply, tracking prices
only to discover that some went up and others sank. He created indexes he hoped would
reveal overall patterns in economy activity.
• Roger Babson: Believed almost everything in life could be reduced to the Law of Cause and
Effect: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (a period of depression was
always matched by a period of prosperity, and the steeper the decline the faster than market
will recover).
• Warren Persons: Inductive approach: He believed history repeated itself, so he would forecast
by analogy, comparing current situations with past experiences.
All forecasters could not foresee crisis in 1929, they all went bankrupt. What was wrong?? Forecasts
where incomplete, ideological, and self-interested. She identifies some problems as to why our
theories do not last or just do not work:
Problem 1: Models.
Forecasters relied on simplified versions of the markets they sought (→buscan) to understand. These
theorists did not have the resources or the means to capture all the data on the economy. And they
had to make choices about what to leave in, and what to leave out in their analysis; this kind of editing
will always be subjective and incomplete representations of complex reality.
Problem 2: Agendas.
All four asters held cherished implicit beliefs about how the world works and therefore about what
matter and what did not. These beliefs are always embedded in each model or formula aimed to be
“objective” or scientific, because these are simply an application of the mental models of the creator.
Problem 3: Forecast is a business.
, All these early forecasting businesses were commercial enterprises. They depended on customers who
themselves had preferences and priorities on the factors that predicted the market. Conflict of interest
in the forecasting industry → The up’s and down’s in the market where optimal for forecasting
businesses because they would keep them in the market thanks to companies searching for stability
and predictability. Which forecaster should we trust? Nobody.
Human discomfort with uncertainty, together with a craving for reassurance, has fueled an industry
that enriches itself by terrorizing us with uncertainty and taunting us with certainty. Margaret
Heffernan, pg. 26
Solution to crazy forecasting and future anxiety: believe, think in possibilities, not in one sole certain
idea that has to work out.
Achieve accuracy in forecasting:
➔ Do not make binary forecasts, almost never give yes or no answers to questions, but instead
assess possibilities, as they change the way you see the future into accepting uncertainty and
reject dramatic absolutism: how likely is...? What would happen if…? → this makes you more
thoughtful and more accurate.
➔ Think in group, because depending on any single voice or loud opinion is folly. Generate
debate, question what you think and change predictions along the way. Be open minded,
humble, and attentive to gain real insight and awareness.
The Role of Memory and History in Prediction.
Memory enable us to simulate the future. Memories require us to be alert and attentive, aware of
where we are and what we are doing. Distraction and overload reduce ability to create memories for
future use. The less we engage in the here and now, the more impoverished our scenarios of the
future become, as events in our heads are reconstructed every time we remember something. This
capacity to generate variety of scenarios gives us the capacity for change.
Because the future is unknowable, the best we can hope for are probabilities – which themselves may
be incorrect. An element that is clearly visible is the effort we do every day in collecting more and
more data, with the ambition to make the probabilistic calculation more accurate. But this is not
possible, in reality. We then often try to focus on our past, to try to find answers there. Also here,
however, history is not helpful, because perspectives and memories are created and modified by new
knowledge, which is constantly changing and in progress.
When we expect history to guide us, we overweight continuity and narrative, while underweighting
change and contingency. Margaret Heffernan, pg. 58 → Focusing on history and overweighting
parallels leaves us blind to crucial small differences that end up making a huge difference, inhibiting
fresh thinking to find new solutions. No two events are ever the same.
Challenge the narrative! Open possibilities! History can provide raw material with which to construct
fresh combinations, drawn from where we have been, where we are today and where we wish to be
tomorrow.
Technology
Technology: Fantasy of what could be > Not thinking about future problems, implications, ethical and
philosophical questions.
How to Map the Future Together
By Margaret Heffernan
Part 1. “Ambition Prediction”. False Profits
Human beings have a natural tendency to search for predictive patterns in unpredictable
environments.
Complication vs. Complexity. We can face, as human beings and through our organizations, overly
complicated situations, and our ability to analyze them in the small details is key. But when facing
complexity, where ambiguity reigns, we cease to be effective.
History proves our ambition to always “predict the future”. But it has never been really possible to do
so…
• Irvin Fisher: Analyzed national economies through the lens of money supply, tracking prices
only to discover that some went up and others sank. He created indexes he hoped would
reveal overall patterns in economy activity.
• Roger Babson: Believed almost everything in life could be reduced to the Law of Cause and
Effect: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (a period of depression was
always matched by a period of prosperity, and the steeper the decline the faster than market
will recover).
• Warren Persons: Inductive approach: He believed history repeated itself, so he would forecast
by analogy, comparing current situations with past experiences.
All forecasters could not foresee crisis in 1929, they all went bankrupt. What was wrong?? Forecasts
where incomplete, ideological, and self-interested. She identifies some problems as to why our
theories do not last or just do not work:
Problem 1: Models.
Forecasters relied on simplified versions of the markets they sought (→buscan) to understand. These
theorists did not have the resources or the means to capture all the data on the economy. And they
had to make choices about what to leave in, and what to leave out in their analysis; this kind of editing
will always be subjective and incomplete representations of complex reality.
Problem 2: Agendas.
All four asters held cherished implicit beliefs about how the world works and therefore about what
matter and what did not. These beliefs are always embedded in each model or formula aimed to be
“objective” or scientific, because these are simply an application of the mental models of the creator.
Problem 3: Forecast is a business.
, All these early forecasting businesses were commercial enterprises. They depended on customers who
themselves had preferences and priorities on the factors that predicted the market. Conflict of interest
in the forecasting industry → The up’s and down’s in the market where optimal for forecasting
businesses because they would keep them in the market thanks to companies searching for stability
and predictability. Which forecaster should we trust? Nobody.
Human discomfort with uncertainty, together with a craving for reassurance, has fueled an industry
that enriches itself by terrorizing us with uncertainty and taunting us with certainty. Margaret
Heffernan, pg. 26
Solution to crazy forecasting and future anxiety: believe, think in possibilities, not in one sole certain
idea that has to work out.
Achieve accuracy in forecasting:
➔ Do not make binary forecasts, almost never give yes or no answers to questions, but instead
assess possibilities, as they change the way you see the future into accepting uncertainty and
reject dramatic absolutism: how likely is...? What would happen if…? → this makes you more
thoughtful and more accurate.
➔ Think in group, because depending on any single voice or loud opinion is folly. Generate
debate, question what you think and change predictions along the way. Be open minded,
humble, and attentive to gain real insight and awareness.
The Role of Memory and History in Prediction.
Memory enable us to simulate the future. Memories require us to be alert and attentive, aware of
where we are and what we are doing. Distraction and overload reduce ability to create memories for
future use. The less we engage in the here and now, the more impoverished our scenarios of the
future become, as events in our heads are reconstructed every time we remember something. This
capacity to generate variety of scenarios gives us the capacity for change.
Because the future is unknowable, the best we can hope for are probabilities – which themselves may
be incorrect. An element that is clearly visible is the effort we do every day in collecting more and
more data, with the ambition to make the probabilistic calculation more accurate. But this is not
possible, in reality. We then often try to focus on our past, to try to find answers there. Also here,
however, history is not helpful, because perspectives and memories are created and modified by new
knowledge, which is constantly changing and in progress.
When we expect history to guide us, we overweight continuity and narrative, while underweighting
change and contingency. Margaret Heffernan, pg. 58 → Focusing on history and overweighting
parallels leaves us blind to crucial small differences that end up making a huge difference, inhibiting
fresh thinking to find new solutions. No two events are ever the same.
Challenge the narrative! Open possibilities! History can provide raw material with which to construct
fresh combinations, drawn from where we have been, where we are today and where we wish to be
tomorrow.
Technology
Technology: Fantasy of what could be > Not thinking about future problems, implications, ethical and
philosophical questions.
