More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
March 16 - April 16, 2023
The Elements of Prediction There is a way to evaluate the likelihood of success of any prediction, a way to predict the prediction, so to speak. It can be done by measuring eleven elements.
I know how universal they are, for many corporate clients whom we have advised on high-stakes predictions have asked us to assist on other types of predictions, such as what opposing litigants might do.
The og chat gpt
1. Measurability How measurable is the outcome you seek to predict? Will it be clear if it happens or does not happen?
2. Vantage Is the person making the prediction in a position to observe the pre-incident indicators and context?
3. Imminence Are you predicting an outcome that might occur soon, as opposed to some remote time in the future?
4. Context Is the context of the situation clear to the person making the prediction?
5. Pre-incident Indicators (PINs) Are there detectable pre-incident indicators that will reliably occur before the outcome being predicted? This is the most valuable of the elements. If one were predicting whether a governor might be the object of an assassination attempt at a speech, pre-incident indicators could include the assassin’s jumping on stage with a gun—but that is too recent a PIN to be very useful (as it provides little time for intervention).
6. Experience Does the person making the prediction have experience with the specific topic involved? A lion tamer can predict whether or not a lion will attack more accurately than I can because he has experience.
7. Comparable Events Can you study or consider outcomes that are comparable—though not necessarily identical—to the one being predicted?
8. Objectivity Is the person making the prediction objective enough to believe that either outcome is possible?
9. Investment To what degree is the person making the prediction invested in the outcome? Simply put, how much does he or she care about avoiding or exploiting the outcome?
10. Replicability Is it practical to test the exact issue being predicted by trying it first elsewhere?
11. Knowledge Does the person making the prediction have accurate knowledge about the topic? Unless it is relevant and accurate, knowledge can be the sinking ship the fool insists is sea-worthy, because knowledge often masquerades as wisdom.
(In my firm, we use a predictive instrument that assigns point values to each of these eleven elements. The scale and its ranges appears in appendix 6, along with some examples of popular predictions.)
When you apply this concept to human beings, you can see that behavior is like a chain.
Though we want to believe that violence is a matter of cause and effect, it is actually a process, a chain in which the violent outcome is only one link. The process of suicide starts way before the act of suicide.
“Man is a coward, plain and simple. He loves life too much. He fears others too much.” —Jack Henry Abbott
That someone would intrude on our peace of mind, that they would speak words so difficult to take back, that they would exploit our fear, that they would care so little about us, that they would raise the stakes so high, that they would stoop so low—all of this alarms us, and by design.
Threatening words are dispatched like soldiers under strict orders: Cause anxiety that cannot be ignored.
For an instrument of communication used so frequently, the threat is little understood, until you think about it. The parent who threatens punishment, the lawyer who threatens unspecified “further action,” the head of state who threatens war, the ex-husband who threatens murder, the child who threatens to make a scene—all are using words with the exact same intent: to cause uncertainty.
Yes, there is, but I needn’t sit at the base of a tree contemplating the question as a coconut rushes downward toward my skull. Since the outcome only happens in the very limited context of being under a coconut tree, I can avoid the hazard altogether… simply by sitting elsewhere. Similarly, we can avoid risks that are inherently present in certain situations. We need not walk defiantly through the territory of a violent gang, or wear our Rolex on a trip to Rio or stay in a violent relationship. Context can be a useful predictor of hazard all by itself.
The first step toward deciding which words actually portend danger is understanding what threats are and what they are not. A threat is a statement of an intention to do some harm, period. It offers no conditions, no alternatives, no ways out. It does not contain the words if, or else, until, unless. Sentences that do contain those words are not threats; they are intimidations, and there is an important distinction. Intimidations are statements of conditions to be met in order to avert a harm.
Threats that are end-game moves—those introduced late in a controversy—are more serious than those used early. That’s because those used early likely represent an immediate emotional response as opposed to a decision to use violence.
Both promises and threats are made to convince us of an intention, but threats actually convince us of an emotion: frustration. Threats betray the speaker by proving that he has failed to influence events in any other way.
How one responds to a threat determines whether it will be a valuable instrument or mere words. Thus, it is the listener and not the speaker who decides how powerful a threat will be. If the listener turns pale, starts shaking, and begs for forgiveness, he has turned the threat or intimidation into gold. Conversely, if he seems unaffected, it is tin.
Most real bombers are patient, I’ll-get-you-in-time type people who can mortgage their emotions for another day.
For example, a death threat communicated in a letter or phone call cannot possibly pose any immediate hazard, but the recipient might nonetheless start getting physically ready for danger, with increased blood flow to the arms and legs (for fighting or running), release of the chemical cortisol (which helps blood coagulate more quickly in case of injury), lactic acid heating up in the muscles (to prepare them for effort), focused vision, and increased breathing and heartbeat to support all these systems. These responses are valuable when facing present danger (such as when Kelly stood up and
...more
The great enemy of perception, and thus of accurate predictions, is judgment. People often learn just enough about something to judge it as belonging in this or that category. They observe bizarre conduct and say, “This guy is just crazy.” Judgments are the automatic pigeon-holing of a person or situation simply because some characteristic is familiar to the observer (so whatever that characteristic meant before it must mean again now). Familiarity is comfortable, but such judgments drop the curtain, effectively preventing the observer from seeing the rest of the play.
Since the motive for nearly all anonymous threats is to influence conduct, I suggest that clients ask who would be served if they took the actions that they’d take if they believed the threats would be carried out. This often leads to the identity of the threatener.
Since victims of threats—and not threateners—decide how valuable a threat will be, the way you react will set the price tag.
The proverbial extortion threat is actually an intimidation, because it contains the words if, or else, unless, or until: “If you don’t give me ten thousand dollars, I’ll tell your wife you are having an affair.” Best response: “Hold on a moment, let me get my wife on the line and you can tell her right now.” With that reaction, the threat is turned from gold to tin. If you can convince an extortionist that the harm he threatens does not worry you, you have at a minimum improved your negotiating position. In many cases, you may actually neutralize the whole matter.
Conversely, reacting with pleading and compliance increases the extortionist’s appraisal of his threat. A threatened harm can be so intolerable to the victim that paying for silence seems worthwhile. Often this paves the way to hear that threat another day, for the person ...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Extortion is a crime of opportunity, usually committed by amateurs who tend to first try the most roundabout approach: “You know, I saw you on the Emmy’s the other night, and you’re doing so well and everything, making so much money, and I’ve had such a rough year financially, and I was thinking about how beautiful you looked in those pictures we took that time in Mexico…”
I ask victims to repeat “I don’t understand what you’re getting at” until the extortionist states it clearly.
Direct threats are not a reliable pre-incident indicator for assassination in America, as demonstrated by the fact that not one successful public-figure attacker in the history of the media age directly threatened his victim first.
That’s because threats spoken to people other than the victim are not as likely to be motivated by a desire to scare the victim. Though they too are rarely acted upon, threats delivered to second parties should always be reported to law enforcement.
The myth that those who will harm a famous person will directly threaten their victims first has led many to wrongly conclude that inappropriate communications that don’t contain threats are not significant. The opposite is actually true. Public figures who ignore inappropriate letters simply because they don’t contain threats, will be missing the very communications most relevant to safety.
This idea that the presence of a threat lowers risk and the absence of a threat elevates risk is hard for people to grasp, perhaps because it feels counter-intuitive, but it’s true, and it’s not the only fac...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
“That’s what happens when you’re angry at people. You make them part of your life.” —Garrison Keillor
want him removed. You want him out of your life. There is a rule we call “engage and enrage.” The more attachment you have—whether favorable or unfavorable—the more this will escalate. You see, we know a secret, and that is that you are
Mike faced a type of situation that initially offers two widely different management plans: (1) change the pursuer, or (2) change the way the pursuer’s conduct affects us. Under the first heading are such things as warnings, counter-threats, police interventions, and other strategies designed to control someone’s conduct. Under the second heading are such things as insulating ourselves from hazard or annoyance, evaluating the likelihood of violence, and monitoring new communications. Under the second plan, we limit the impact the situation is allowed to have by limiting our fear and anxiety.
...more
By way of analogy, when you are driving on a slippery mountain road at night, you do not manage the hazard by getting out and drying off the pavement—you slow down through the dangerous curves.
A strategy of watch and wait is usually the wisest first step, but people frequently apply another management plan: engage and enrage.
This letter gives a good opportunity to see the situation from Taylor’s perspective. He felt intruded upon, threatened, and, perhaps most importantly, emasculated. Recall the assumptions I said could be applied to most of us: We seek connection with others. We are saddened by loss, and try to avoid it. We dislike rejection. We like recognition and attention. We will do more to avoid pain than we will do to seek pleasure. We dislike ridicule and embarrassment. We care what others think of us. We seek a degree of control over our lives.
All the information needed was in this letter. What Taylor projected onto Hicklin, namely that he was “an emotionally-involved assassin,” was actually at work inside him. As James Baldwin said, “In the face of one’s victim, one sees oneself.”
People who refuse to let go are becoming more common, and each case teaches us the same valuable lesson: Don’t engage in a war. Wars rarely end well because by definition someone will have to lose.
In Predicting Violent Behavior, Dr. John Monahan explains that violence is inter-actional: “The reaction of a potential victim of violence may distinguish a verbal altercation from a murder.” As you have now learned from cases of public figure pursuers and other people who refuse to let go, the minute you get into it with someone, you are into it, and if you get angry, that all by itself is a kind of victory for him.
“How much more grievous are the consequences of our anger than the acts which arouse it.” —Marcus Aurelius
JACA has shown you that people don’t just “snap.” There is a process as observable, and often as predictable, as water coming to a boil.
1) Inflexibility The employee resists change, is rigid, and unwilling to discuss ideas contrary to his own. 2) Weapons He has obtained a weapon within the last ninety days, or he has a weapons collection, or he makes jokes or frequent comments about weapons, or he discusses weapons as instruments of power or revenge. 3) SAD
