Hedging, Dredging, Ledging Bets. Risky Business; time will tell.

"We interrupt this program, for the following prediction..." And I interrupt the series on Clandestine Communication, within the larger series on communication, due to some profound prognostications, which reminded ME to remind YOU about the omnipresent, prescient nature, of these predictors. Well, at least I got the first part right, that predictions of risk, threats are daily, ranging from the weather which, based on events of the past few days, can be ominous enough. But then there's the human type, and those who pose as possessing the power of prediction, who can tell us beyond a shadow of a doubt... 

"No longer a threat" Or, to include the greater quote, "...the right wing extremist Breivik who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011 will be eligible for parole, unless the Telemark Distict Court rules he is still so dangerous that society needs extra protection against him..." (adding that if other conditions are met, he can be held indefinitely).  Almost simultaneously, from this morning's newscast, comes yet more data and attendant advice about hedging your bets against (CV/Omicron): "...we don't think further testing would be indicated as the additional vaccination should suffice..." And this, following my continued reading of Winston Churchill accounts of how the (pre)conditions for WWII were actually assembled at the end of WWI (The War they all thought would be "the war to end all wars", which includes various heads of states throughout the world and their various approaches to prediction, hedging). Timely then and now. I am writing this brief, hopefully provocative post, to remind us all of both the importance and limits of such predictions, the combination of which should cause one to pause with humility before casting votes in either direction...

Formative, Formidable Forces: "A heap of trouble...A leap of faith..." These quotes exemplify the simultaneous nature of what prognosticators, including those in my business, are engaged in -- making important predictions, projections, forecasts about situations, individuals, and/or groups that have come to our attention due to some extremes of behavior, those which cause risk to themselves and/or others. One would think that the history of making such predictions and the amount of time we are wrong would inform us of the large "standard error of measurement" in doing so, which would otherwise be projected as "intellectual honesty", otherwise reflected as humility. How often do you hear such "experts" hedging their bets, as in "qualifying" their remarks? As I suggested here before, you will probably listen closer now. As I was cautioned when I entered the field of Psychology, our field had already earned a few 'rotten tomatoes' for stating (we) can predict human behavior even short term with confidence, let alone over a longer period of time in question (especially in retrospect, as in "they should have known...").  

P.C. and Transfer of Power: About mid-1999, or a few months following the tragic we now refer to simply as "Columbine", I experienced a tacit attempt of school in our community, to transfer the "expertise" on risk management to other professionals outside of the respective schools, whenever a question of safety arose, even based on third hand information. A typical example included a referral of a student who was rumored to have made a statement to another student that involved a degree of risk/threat (regarding self harm or to others in the school), requiring them to come to my office (or another) and be evaluated, after which they can return to school when (we) reassure the respective administrators (and, indirectly, the student body), that John/Jane Doe "is no longer a risk..." Would YOU want to be the person making that call? What exactly constitutes "no threat...?" It's still a matter of debate.  

Ensure, Insure: Relevant to these risk/threat assessments is the trend of the larger mental health system, as well as legislation associated with treatment. That is, when I first entered the professional field of psychology we could obtain longer periods of more 'intensive' evaluation (e.g., inpatient treatment), which would enable for professionals to observe the person in question over a longer period, in order to evaluate both risk and indicated types/levels of treatment. Now, in part due to not being able to demonstrate efficacy and therefore, insurers' reticence to support longer term treatment, the typical stay is less than a week, which essentially becomes crisis intervention, after which the person in question is discharged to the care of an outpatient practitioner. For many this becomes a revolving door, reflecting in part the ongoing delicate balance between the 'patient's' rights and the risk they may pose to "...the society who need protection..." 

"It's safe to go out..." What we have always hoped for, on any given day, throughout the ages. 
                                      Time Will Tell...

"Now, we return to regular Clandestine programming..."