Corrie’s Maria Connor reminds me of many dead tree columnists and economic forecasters, especially those who make out-of-consensus calls.
To recap unnecessarily, Maria believes - she says she “knows” - that evil Tony Gordon killed her hubby Liam. Almost no-one believes her. But she’s right.
There are, I reckon, four analogies here with punditry.
1. Just because you’re right doesn’t mean you’re rational. The kindest thing one could say about the loose-knickered simpleton’s powers of ratiocination is that they are slightly superior to those of her brother Kirk - though the same could be said of the trays of mince in Ashley‘s shop.
2. A big claim requires big evidence. Tell me there’s a cab outside, and I’ll not raise an eyebrow. Tell me there’s a UFO and I’ll need some impressive proof. Likewise, if you’re going to accuse a man (even a Scotchman) of murder, or predict that Britain’s going bankrupt, you need better evidence than average.
3. It’s not enough to have an argument that persuades yourself. Maria is failing not merely to produce proof or “truth”, but even failing to pursue a Rortyean intersubjective agreement. She’s forgetting the need to persuade others - that we need more that repeated, passionate assertions.
4. If you’re taking an out-of-consensus view, be careful of the ancillary claims you make. Maria’s claim that Tony Gordon is a murderer has been undermined by the fact that one of the men she alleges he killed, Jed Stone, is alive. Through the reverse halo effect, this has weakened support for her correct allegation, that he killed Liam.
Herein, though, lies the queer thing. Maria is generally regarded as very stupid. And yet you can find close similarities with her behaviour in pretty much any newspaper column - and, indeed, with those forecasters who "successfully" predicted the crisis.
To recap unnecessarily, Maria believes - she says she “knows” - that evil Tony Gordon killed her hubby Liam. Almost no-one believes her. But she’s right.
There are, I reckon, four analogies here with punditry.
1. Just because you’re right doesn’t mean you’re rational. The kindest thing one could say about the loose-knickered simpleton’s powers of ratiocination is that they are slightly superior to those of her brother Kirk - though the same could be said of the trays of mince in Ashley‘s shop.
2. A big claim requires big evidence. Tell me there’s a cab outside, and I’ll not raise an eyebrow. Tell me there’s a UFO and I’ll need some impressive proof. Likewise, if you’re going to accuse a man (even a Scotchman) of murder, or predict that Britain’s going bankrupt, you need better evidence than average.
3. It’s not enough to have an argument that persuades yourself. Maria is failing not merely to produce proof or “truth”, but even failing to pursue a Rortyean intersubjective agreement. She’s forgetting the need to persuade others - that we need more that repeated, passionate assertions.
4. If you’re taking an out-of-consensus view, be careful of the ancillary claims you make. Maria’s claim that Tony Gordon is a murderer has been undermined by the fact that one of the men she alleges he killed, Jed Stone, is alive. Through the reverse halo effect, this has weakened support for her correct allegation, that he killed Liam.
Herein, though, lies the queer thing. Maria is generally regarded as very stupid. And yet you can find close similarities with her behaviour in pretty much any newspaper column - and, indeed, with those forecasters who "successfully" predicted the crisis.
That's allvery well, but if you say things often enough and loud enough, even when other people KNOW you are wrong, after a while they start to waver.
For instance, the entire media industry belived Brown when he said he had abolished BOOM and BUST. Even now some say all our problems are nothing to do with him - an assertion he continually makes. As Bill Clinton said, deny deny deny, and its quite hard to prove.
Posted by: kinglear | February 02, 2009 at 02:38 PM
If you’re taking an out-of-consensus view, be careful of the ancillary claims you make
This is a very important one. Many on the right (particularly in the blogosphere) KNEW that inflation had been 10% a year since 1997, or something like that, even though if that was true our living standards would be on a par with somewhere like Romania.
Posted by: Matthew | February 02, 2009 at 03:40 PM
"trays of mince in Ashley‘s shop." Ashley's? I say, Ashley's? What happened to his father?
Posted by: dearieme | February 02, 2009 at 06:43 PM
But many who predicted the crisis did present extraordinary evidence!
Posted by: reason | February 03, 2009 at 10:35 AM
No they didn't.
Posted by: john b | February 03, 2009 at 01:53 PM
And a lot of it reflects a switch from bank deposits to securities; foreigners “other investments” in the UK, http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html
Posted by: rolex submariner | December 27, 2009 at 04:58 PM