Interesting observation: Uncertainty is a predictable outcome, too

As our read­ers may recall, we had expressed our­selves con­fi­dent to be able to pre­dict the out­come of the 2020 US pres­i­den­tial elec­tion with a high degree of con­fi­dence based on finan­cial mar­ket behav­ior. As our read­ers will also be aware, we have good rea­son to be con­fi­dent to be able to “read” mar­ket behav­ior for the pur­pose of mak­ing prof­itable pre­dic­tions of sub­se­quent such behav­ior.1

This time around, no mat­ter how many dif­fer­ent data points and series we ana­lyzed, both in their com­plex inter­play as well as in iso­la­tion, the result­ing fore­cast was “max­i­mal uncer­tain­ty”. During the first part of the trad­ing day of November 3, which, to be sure, end­ed before the polls closed, every­thing point­ed to a win by the Republican pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. During the lat­ter half, this advan­tage was com­plete­ly equal­ized. Just as in 2016 we were one hun­dred per­cent cer­tain of the even­tu­al out­come that quick­ly became a com­mon­ly accept­ed cer­tain­ty already dur­ing elec­tion night, this time the over­whelm­ing impres­sion of max­i­mal uncer­tain­ty kept us from writ­ing any­thing here as we thought say­ing that we had no clue might sound as if we were sim­ply duck­ing out.

Yet the max­i­mal­ly uncer­tain out­come of the elec­tion that will by all like­li­hood be even­tu­al­ly decid­ed in a series of fierce­ly fought court bat­tles between the two cam­paigns over appar­ent­ly at least to some extent sub­stan­ti­at­ed claims of vot­ing irreg­u­lar­i­ties (on the face of it, to name one exam­ple we have read about, it would indeed seem close to a sta­tis­ti­cal impos­si­bil­i­ty that a batch of more than 23,000 at-once report­ed votes would con­tain only votes for one of the two can­di­dates and not a sin­gle vote for the oth­er) has opened my eyes to the notion that uncer­tain­ty can be a pre­dictable out­come, too. Uncertainty of future hap­pen­ings is what enables what we per­ceive as our free will. So the out­come, as it cur­rent­ly stands, con­cep­tu­al­ly reminds us of the part of our exis­tence that is char­ac­ter­ized by indi­vid­ual free­dom, by indi­vid­u­al­i­ty itself. Which, in turn, is a defin­ing ele­ment of what makes humans human.

A high­ly human elec­tion out­come, thus.

_____
  1. A promi­nent exam­ple being our “coro­na crash bot­tom call” of March 24, 2020: https://loico.com/why-we-have-likely-seen-the-bottom-of-the-corona-crash-in-the-us-stock-market/[]
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print
“The delta vari­ant is like a com­mon cold, but …”: Matteo Bassetti, noto infet­tivol­o­go tele­vi­si­vo: “La vari­ante Delta è come un sem­plice raf­fred­dore ma sono con­tento se si usa per fare ter­ror­is­mo per vac­cinare la gente!” Un medico che sposa la strate­gia del ter­rore deve essere denun­ci­a­to e radi­a­to dall’Albo dei medici. pic.twitter.com/YnPEvv0Mhe — RadioSavana (@RadioSavana) August 3, 2021 Why would one want to get vac­ci­nat­ed against the com­mon cold (which coro­n­avirus­es have caused prob­a­bly since humans exist)? A pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine who states such illog­i­cal­i­ty vio­lates his hip­po­crat­ic oath, and not only. He is respon­si­ble for phys­i­cal harm that vac­ci­na­tion caus­es
What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.

Leave a comment / join the discussion

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.