I think this analysis is correct. But unlike the fall of Rome brought on by barbarian invasions, our fall will be brought about by some global collapse in the financial system, due to incredibly high levels of debt and financial instruments we don’t have full statistics on or even understand, amplified by the debt bubble in AI.
If I'm not mistaken, perhaps you were even hinting at this in your references to the 2008 global financial crisis?
Yes, but more broadly, I just don't know what I don't know. The exact cause or cluster of related causes may catch us all off guard, or the assumed causes may interplay and spiral with surprise factors in ways we never expected.
1. “And let’s hope there aren’t any barbarian hordes waiting in the wings, because our stats might not be what we think they are. “
Uh, I think we know there ARE barbarians at the gate.
2. To your point about competency, I remember in flight school eyeing my fellow students drawing opinions on who would be brave and who would cut and run. Obvious I’m an N of 1 but suffice to it say, performance in school did not match conduct in combat. I can say my father was quite the hero. I can’t say I measured up to him but I did OK. We both served to RVN, he started as a B17 pilot in WWII.
3. About Gibbon, I could never write about him without mentioning the beauty of his prose. I always thought Churchill was extraordinary until I picked up Gibbon. Compared to most of the prose we read today, it’s almost like he’s writing in a foreign language. Current company excepted.
Correct about the Royal Navy in its Napoleonic heyday. I'd say that Jane Austen gives us another clue: the younger men promoted (or 'made' as they called it) through the influence of a (kin or other) patron, felt they owed something - as, of course, they did - and were super-motivated to achieve. That would be William Price in Mansfield Park, and Frederick Wentworth - Admiral Croft's brother-in-law - in Persuasion.
Great article Andrew. We have become a society very reliant on “statistics” and “experts” - and they can very often let us down. I am thinking of polling which conservative campaigners here in Australia “relied” on for our election last year, which proved very, very wrong for a number of reasons…a very human decision on “weighting” of the results made by one of the exports being one of them. Our guts and instinct were telling us the figures were wrong, yet for the most part those in the know held firm to their course of action based on the “stats”…and we ended up totally blindsided by the end result.
Ya. Analysts and consultants have a long track record of being hated and dismissed. I suspect that for most of them, there isn't a great way of learning — when you hire them — what percent of their predictions/suggestions have come about and borne fruit. So the not-great ones stick around and move from unpleased client to unpleased client. As long as they're right a few times and can claim those victories, they can keep selling themselves as prescient. And even among politicians, the ones who fail spectacularly in predictions can go on to second careers as public pundits interviewed on news programs. People forget that they were wrong about Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam, or whatever, and so listen to what they have to say about the new thing.
I think this analysis is correct. But unlike the fall of Rome brought on by barbarian invasions, our fall will be brought about by some global collapse in the financial system, due to incredibly high levels of debt and financial instruments we don’t have full statistics on or even understand, amplified by the debt bubble in AI.
If I'm not mistaken, perhaps you were even hinting at this in your references to the 2008 global financial crisis?
Yes, but more broadly, I just don't know what I don't know. The exact cause or cluster of related causes may catch us all off guard, or the assumed causes may interplay and spiral with surprise factors in ways we never expected.
Yes — and I’d say it’s more than an intellectual recognition. This is a feeling I’ve often had recently.
Three points:
1. “And let’s hope there aren’t any barbarian hordes waiting in the wings, because our stats might not be what we think they are. “
Uh, I think we know there ARE barbarians at the gate.
2. To your point about competency, I remember in flight school eyeing my fellow students drawing opinions on who would be brave and who would cut and run. Obvious I’m an N of 1 but suffice to it say, performance in school did not match conduct in combat. I can say my father was quite the hero. I can’t say I measured up to him but I did OK. We both served to RVN, he started as a B17 pilot in WWII.
3. About Gibbon, I could never write about him without mentioning the beauty of his prose. I always thought Churchill was extraordinary until I picked up Gibbon. Compared to most of the prose we read today, it’s almost like he’s writing in a foreign language. Current company excepted.
Gibbon is a fantastic writer. Has another English-language history book ever matched his in quality of prose? I can’t think of one.
Correct about the Royal Navy in its Napoleonic heyday. I'd say that Jane Austen gives us another clue: the younger men promoted (or 'made' as they called it) through the influence of a (kin or other) patron, felt they owed something - as, of course, they did - and were super-motivated to achieve. That would be William Price in Mansfield Park, and Frederick Wentworth - Admiral Croft's brother-in-law - in Persuasion.
I was actually thinking about Admiral Croft when writing this piece!
Great article Andrew. We have become a society very reliant on “statistics” and “experts” - and they can very often let us down. I am thinking of polling which conservative campaigners here in Australia “relied” on for our election last year, which proved very, very wrong for a number of reasons…a very human decision on “weighting” of the results made by one of the exports being one of them. Our guts and instinct were telling us the figures were wrong, yet for the most part those in the know held firm to their course of action based on the “stats”…and we ended up totally blindsided by the end result.
Ya. Analysts and consultants have a long track record of being hated and dismissed. I suspect that for most of them, there isn't a great way of learning — when you hire them — what percent of their predictions/suggestions have come about and borne fruit. So the not-great ones stick around and move from unpleased client to unpleased client. As long as they're right a few times and can claim those victories, they can keep selling themselves as prescient. And even among politicians, the ones who fail spectacularly in predictions can go on to second careers as public pundits interviewed on news programs. People forget that they were wrong about Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam, or whatever, and so listen to what they have to say about the new thing.
What's the phrase? Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics?
Thanks! Yes, I've seen this stat obsession play out in many less-than-optimal ways.