The world of the futurist is dominated by the five 'Ps' of the futures cone. We have the projected and probable futures that describe a limited state of future outcomes. These are knowable futures which belong to the world of risk. 'Small world futures' as described by John Kay and Mervyn King in their book 'Radical Uncertainty'. There are a limited set of outcomes in a determinate future that occurs in a world where there is a large base of information about previous outcomes to draw upon. You flip an unbiased coin and expect a head or a tail.
Opposite small world futures are 'large world futures'. In these, the future states are primarily unknowable. There is a very large range of potential outcomes with a very limited, or non-existent, information base to draw upon previous experience. You flip an unbiased coin and you have no idea what the outcome might be. The coin may land on it's side. Or it could fall down a drain. Or it could be intercepted in the air and doesn't land at all. There are many potential outcomes here. This is the world of uncertainty, which is dominated by possible futures and plausible futures.
These distinctions - between projected, probable, plausible and possible futures - matter because over this structure lies any number of preferable futures. Preferable futures provide the point at which foresight becomes wishful thinking. However, it is worth reaching that point the long way round because it allows us to see what is going on here.
Preferable futures are unambiguously normative. They describe what we want to see happen in the future. Some observers position projected futures as a polar opposite to preferable futures. It is argued that a combination of observation and quantification adds a degree of objectivity, which contrasts with the essential subjectivity of preferable futures. However, upon closer examination, this might not be entirely the case. When we drill into the probabilities that underpin the case for the objectivity of projected futures, we find all manner of subjectivities that can enter into seemingly objective exercise. There is the question of what is being measured. The basis upon which it is measured. The interpretation of the results. And so on, and so on. Whilst some futures can be numerical, that does not mean that they are entirely objective.
This is where wishful thinking enters the picture. An essential part of wishful thinking is the focus upon the future that we want to happen. We may have a particular end in mind, but that might not be the only possible outcome. For example, in the game 'Monopoly', two dice are thrown to determine how far a player progresses around the board. We play the rule that a double six gives a player an additional turn. The player may want to throw a double six (because that will help them progress round the board), but that desire doesn't exclude the possibility of throwing any number between two and eleven. It is only when the player is adamant that they will throw a double six that we have entered the realm of wishful thinking.
This is important because it enters into our analysis of the future. In 1941, Stalin convinced himself that Hitler wouldn't invade Russia, despite the contrary evidence of Chamberlain being equally wrongly convinced in 1938 about Poland. Both Stalin and Chamberlain were engaged in wishful thinking to the exclusion of all other possible futures. Whenever we undertake a futures exercise, we bring to bear a number of assumptions about the future. It is the potential inaccuracy of these assumptions that give rise to various possible futures, and the uncertainty inherent within that structure. This is where we can begin to prevent foresight from becoming wishful thinking.
A really important aspect in the study of the future is to identify the assumptions, both explicit and implicit, within the study. That is an argument for plurality. If the team undertaking the study has a degree of diversity, shows differences of opinion, and argues the point a lot, then you can have a greater degree of confidence in the resulting study. To put it another way round, if you want to stop your foresight from becoming wishful thinking, go out and argue with people different to you. Do it with an enquiring mind and accept that you might be wrong. That way, your work will naturally improve.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment