Silent evidence can actually bias matters to look less stable and riskier than they actually are. Take cancer. We are in the habit of counting survival rates from diagnosed cancer cases—which should overestimate the danger from cancer.
Uncovering silent evidence can actually make things seem more dangerious than they already are. For instance, and I don't know if this is true, someone might point out that more people are getting cancer than ever before.
Well, there are more people.
No, I mean the cancer rate is getting higher.
Prove it, I say.
Let's say they prove it by referencing a website.
But what about the test? The more sensitive the imaging the more cancer you will find. Maybe the rate of cancer isn't going up. Maybe the diagnosis rate is going up.
Many people get diagnosed while the tumer tiny. They will never live long enough for the tumor to get big enough to harm them.
As an investment advisor, I pointed out that INFLATION put their SAFE PORTFOLIO at GREAT RISK. This was while a person was young. As they got OLDER, there wasn't enough time for INFLATION to hurt them badly. However, AN ILL-TIMED MARKET CRASH could affect them.
I'd also point out that interest rates being cut in half is the same as LOSING HALF THEIR MONEY. We had no choice but to take risk. The question was, "Which risk did we want to take?"
