82,891
edits
Hindsight: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil| | {{a|devil|{{image|Concert flyer|png|Bring cushions.}}}}{{Quote| | ||
{{office scene|III|iv|gazes admiringly at his own Insta feed, which consists entirely of touched-up selfies|silently fumes while the [[JC]], who has managed to elbow his way into what was meant to be a private meeting of important people, will now not stop talking}} | {{office scene|III|iv|gazes admiringly at his own Insta feed, which consists entirely of touched-up selfies|silently fumes while the [[JC]], who has managed to elbow his way into what was meant to be a private meeting of important people, will now not stop talking}} | ||
:'''[[JC]]''': [''Winding down''] “... so, I ask you: why has the legal industry been so ''inept'' at preventing catastrophic risks? There are more lawyers than ever, but we don’t seem to be able to stop anything: Nick Leeson, [[LTCM]], [[Amaranth]], [[Enron]], Global Crossing, Kerviel, [[Madoff]], Bear Stearns, [[Lehman]], [[LIBOR]], Theranos, London Whale, Mossack Fonseca, 1MDB, Wirecard. All our immense legal firepower failed to prevent ''any'' of these.” | :'''[[JC]]''': [''Winding down''] “... so, I ask you: why has the legal industry been so ''inept'' at preventing catastrophic risks? There are more lawyers than ever, but we don’t seem to be able to stop anything: Nick Leeson, [[LTCM]], [[Amaranth]], [[Enron]], Global Crossing, Kerviel, [[Madoff]], Bear Stearns, [[Lehman]], [[LIBOR]], Theranos, London Whale, Mossack Fonseca, 1MDB, Wirecard. All our immense legal firepower failed to prevent ''any'' of these.” | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
On every [[disclaimer]] any [[financial services]] firm has ever sent — and ever ''will'' send, in the history of the world, until the [[End of days|End of Days]] — however paranoid, overblown, absurd, weird or wonderful, there will be one constant, ringing reminder: one thing, which, above all the others it will say: “[[past performance is no indicator of future results]]”. | On every [[disclaimer]] any [[financial services]] firm has ever sent — and ever ''will'' send, in the history of the world, until the [[End of days|End of Days]] — however paranoid, overblown, absurd, weird or wonderful, there will be one constant, ringing reminder: one thing, which, above all the others it will say: “[[past performance is no indicator of future results]]”. | ||
But how easily we | So we know this. It is encoded into what we do. But how easily we ''overlook'' it. | ||
===A cold night in Vienna, 1808=== | ===A cold night in Vienna, 1808=== | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
This is the human condition, summarised. Only ''once it has happened'' — [[past tense]] — and often, only months or years after that, can we ''possibly'' appreciate the significance of the unexpected. | This is the human condition, summarised. Only ''once it has happened'' — [[past tense]] — and often, only months or years after that, can we ''possibly'' appreciate the significance of the unexpected. | ||
===The category error: providing for the future by reference to the past=== | ===The category error: providing for the future by reference to the past=== | ||
This is where my friend the middle manager makes his [[category error]]. [[Data]] all come from the same place: [[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]. When we review risks, catastrophes and step-changes; when we consider [[punctuated equilibrium|punctuations to the equilibrium]] be they fair or foul, our wisdom, our careful analysis, our sage opinions, our hot takes, our [[thought leader]]ship — ''all'' of these are [[Second-order derivative|derived]] from, predicated on, and delimited by [[data]] which, when the event played out, ''we did not have''. | This is where my friend the middle manager makes his [[category error]]. [[Data]] all come from the same place: [[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]. When we review risks, catastrophes and step-changes; when we consider [[punctuated equilibrium|punctuations to the equilibrium]] be they fair or foul, our wisdom, our careful analysis, our sage opinions, our [[Hot takes on Twitter|hot takes]], our [[thought leader]]ship — ''all'' of these are [[Second-order derivative|derived]] from, predicated on, and delimited by [[data]] which, when the event played out, ''we did not have''. | ||
And herein lies the tension and profound dilemma of the received approach to modern legal practice. For we commercial lawyers are charged with anticipating ''the [[future]]'' but we are sent out to battle armed with a methodology drawn exclusively from ''[[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]''. Just occasionally, this [[dissonance]] rears up and hits us, when the formal imperatives of [[legibility]] take priority over the logic of common sense. When, say, the financial controller insists {{sex|she}} must hold capital against undoubted shortcomings in a contract documenting a transaction that has already matured — a risk that ''did not come about and no longer can'', even though the reporting period rumbles on. That kind of thing. | And herein lies the tension and profound dilemma of the received approach to modern legal practice. For we commercial lawyers are charged with anticipating ''the [[future]]'' but we are sent out to battle armed with a methodology drawn exclusively from ''[[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]''. Just occasionally, this [[dissonance]] rears up and hits us, when the formal imperatives of [[legibility]] take priority over the logic of common sense. When, say, the financial controller insists {{sex|she}} must hold capital against undoubted shortcomings in a contract documenting a transaction that has already matured — a risk that ''did not come about and no longer can'', even though the reporting period rumbles on. That kind of thing. | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
It is interesting to that when executives appeal for change, for “[[revolution]]” — ironic, I know, but I’ve seen it happen — for “a new way of working” they are not talking about the revealed failings of their own narrative — it’s got them where they are, after all, so it can't be ''all'' bad — but is upon the inconstant performance of those mortal, expensive, fallible [[Meatsack|meat-sack]]s snoozing away at the switch. Thanks to overwhelming [[confirmation bias]], the idea that ''the switch isn’t working'', and ''it’s the hierarchy supporting the broken switch that is not fit for purpose'', somehow fails to occur. | It is interesting to that when executives appeal for change, for “[[revolution]]” — ironic, I know, but I’ve seen it happen — for “a new way of working” they are not talking about the revealed failings of their own narrative — it’s got them where they are, after all, so it can't be ''all'' bad — but is upon the inconstant performance of those mortal, expensive, fallible [[Meatsack|meat-sack]]s snoozing away at the switch. Thanks to overwhelming [[confirmation bias]], the idea that ''the switch isn’t working'', and ''it’s the hierarchy supporting the broken switch that is not fit for purpose'', somehow fails to occur. | ||
And this is not to mention — no; no: it is [[Archegos|still too soon]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Signal-to-noise ratio]] | *[[Signal-to-noise ratio]] | ||