By RONALD VIZZONI GARCIA*
Analysts and commentators have produced numerous and contradictory predictions about the future administration of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump's victory has provided plenty of reasons to reflect on how we consume expert analysis. At such times, the most sought-after product is the figure of the “expert”, the “intellectual”, the “researcher”. It is curious that psychics, astrologers and religious leaders are not consulted at this time. Only at the turn of the year will psychics, astrologers and religious leaders present their predictions for politics and the economy.
On the side of information consumers, the person who is approaching a subject through initial impact has no way of separating the “expert who has studied the subject for years” and the youtuber that talks about everything. There is no criticism here of the fact that everyone has an opinion; that is the good part. The issue is how social networks affect how people get information. Information circulates in different ways. Seemingly simple and incorrect ideas, but which confirm people's beliefs, spread quickly.
It is difficult to assess different sources when receiving a lot of information. People will probably stick to the most familiar source, which confirms their basic values. Unfortunately, many topics have definitions and questions that are counterintuitive to common sense. It is difficult to see that the reasoning that “everyone should agree with” is wrong and part of the problem. Your simple solution is tested several times, in different contexts, always with unpleasant results. On social media, these ideas spread strongly because they reflect deep-rooted beliefs. The phenomenon gains scale when it is a quick source of wealth and group control.
One example: the “pedagogical” effect of physical punishment against children. No serious expert would argue that its use is beneficial. No one gains from the use of violence in the home. Brazil has legislation that prohibits physical punishment (the “spanking law”). However, you don’t have to look very hard to find people talking about “how the world is going wrong” and how the use of physical punishment by those responsible for them was good for their education. This says more about what the person believes in than about the education of children.
The problem is compounded when this feeling can be exploited commercially or politically. These are the moments when a doctor, a psychologist, a religious leader, a coach asking for your mobilization to fight against this law that has been “disrupting” the Brazilian family structure. The crusade in defense of the “gay cure” was exactly that.
Some people, after consuming a lot of information on the same subject, consider themselves “almost experts”. We have caricatures of WhatsApp lawyers, geopolitical strategists in YouTube comments, economists who teach macroeconomics using the example of the family budget, and so on. People who are willing to stay awake until they win the latest argument about the details of a subject that they didn’t even know about until last week. More engagement, but more wealth for third parties. This is what advertising on social media thrives on.
We have discussed the consumption of ideas and analysis so far, but a crucial part of this “marketplace of ideas” defines the success or failure of a public intellectual: the ability to make predictions. This is why many prefer not to commit themselves beyond their comfort zone.
Who gets the predictions right?
In politics, an issue gains prominence when it arouses uncertainty, anxiety, and expectations about the future. You want to know whether politician A or B will win the election. You need to know this because there are consequences if A or B wins. Ordinary people consume these ideas with a practical goal: to feel secure about the future.
What can we expect? It is only fair to turn to those who really seem to understand. We know how difficult it is to make this distinction on social media. Let's say that we do, in fact, work with those who are experts in the subject. Can we guarantee that the analysis is good and that the predictions are reliable? But what if a large part of the team of experts makes predictions using a method very similar to that of the experts consulted at the end of the year (psychics, astrologers, etc.)?
Up until now, it may have seemed like I’ve been valuing experts over ordinary people. This is a great example of an issue that seems so simple, you just have to pick a side, but it’s not. Let’s take a look at the expectations surrounding Donald Trump’s presidency.
Let's look at some general conclusions based on the news: "Donald Trump is an isolationist and will reduce the American presence in wars." "Donald Trump has a good relationship with Putin." "Donald Trump promised during his campaign to do much worse things than he did in his first term." "Donald Trump will reduce taxes for the rich and place barriers on Chinese and European products." "Neo-Nazi groups were present throughout Donald Trump's campaign and are expected to grow stronger." "The Bolsonaro family is linked to Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro will benefit." "Lula has always had better relationships with Republicans and will benefit." "Donald Trump is expected to erode democracy using the Supreme Court and the American Congress." "Elon Musk will have a position in Donald Trump's government and will likely want to retaliate for the defeat he suffered with Minister Alexandre de Moraes." Yes, these are all real possibilities. I emphasize: real possibilities. The news and everyday conversations mention these possibilities.
These typical predictions do not have a specific form, date or prediction of their real impact. Looking back over four years, any expert will be able to cite some “analyses that came true”, for a very simple reason: they are extremely generic. There is nothing to prevent Jair Bolsonaro and Lula from producing political facts at different times and in different ways, which can be attributed to their relationship with Donald Trump or the American government. Once the administration is over, it will be easy to interpret past events as confirmation of the analysis. Do these generic predictions really prepare us for what is to come?
With the imprecision of general comments, knowledge of a specific situation is reduced to choosing between optimistic or pessimistic analyses and forecasts. Mood swings affect the preference of who is the ideal interpreter to explain the situation. The superficiality of the forecast allows for amendments to be made over time. When reality imposes itself, we can reinterpret the initial forecast. Is it possible to make forecasts whose accuracy is not due to chance or subsequent reinterpretation?
Superforecasters
Phillip E. Tetlock, a psychologist who works in the field of political science, has been conducting a series of studies on predictions. The most classic one surveyed several analysts in a variety of fields and told them that they needed very specific estimates about the future in practical and chronological terms. No generic, dateless predictions. The result: in the long term (three to five years), experts making predictions are worse than chimpanzees shooting darts at targets.
A second conclusion: the more ideological the person, the more rigid their analysis and the worse the quality of the prediction. Ironically, these are the analyses that are most successful, according to the author. This is because they are made in a direct and simple way, by people who are very confident about themselves. Something that fits well with TV and social media news programs and broadcasts.
Phillip Tetlock has been running forecasting tournaments for the U.S. government. In these tournaments, you can have ordinary people making more accurate predictions than high-ranking government officials. Anyone can enter and make their predictions. Using this database of results, he claims to have identified the “superforecasters” and their methods that are capable of being much more accurate than average.
How to predict?
In short, superforecasters look at the world as a set of interrelated events, each with different probabilities of unfolding. As things happen, these probabilities change. So, for example, for a prediction like “Trump will close the US Congress,” several prerequisites will be necessary. It is not enough for one person, at a given moment, to say that he will do this. Even if that person is the newly elected president of the US. Today, this probability is close to zero, because if the president elected the majority, it is unlikely that he will get into conflict with Congress. As I said, it is not a question of yes or no, but of probabilities.
As other things happen, the odds change. Imagine a civil war, as anticipated in the movies; that changes everything. However, a civil war has several elements to be able to occur. The job of superforecasters is to establish this chain of necessary prerequisites, establish probabilities and update them as the situation changes. This requires study of the specific situation and analytical flexibility to perceive the situation from different angles. You can find a detailed description of these methods in the author's main work (written in partnership with Dan Gardner), Superforecasts: the art and science of anticipating the future (Objective Publisher).
Is Donald Trump chaos?
In the specific case of predictions about Donald Trump, what I notice in the trivial analyses is: (i) anticipation of everything bad or good that has already been done or verbalized by the politician. (ii) little value is given to other social actors and their choices. (iii) Chance, uncertainty and ignorance are removed from the equation. (iv) A central emotion is established to classify the character and the situation. Let's look at these points.
When we take everything wrong or right that a drastic change can bring, we are forgetting the processes that these changes need to happen. They are not going to become real in a month.
The first year of government is likely to be the most proactive. There are two changes in the scenario that are rarely considered. The experience of the first government and the fact that Donald Trump cannot run for reelection. In the first term, there was a lot of confusion, embassies were left without ambassadors and high-ranking officials left the government criticizing Trump.
Donald Trump has a tense and destructive relationship with his team. We don't know if this will continue or how important it will be. On the other hand, those who are elected and accepted are familiar with these cases. This serves both to better equip themselves with evidence for future problems and to tolerate more chronic situations. Since Donald Trump cannot be reelected, a problem arises: who will succeed him? Possible candidates are already articulating strategies, including attacks on rivals within their own party. Even though they are from the same party, Republican leaders with a majority in Congress will seek influence and prominence over the government. These small fissures can turn into major disruptions.
Item two is quite interesting: if I, an ordinary person in Brazil, know that the Trump government can do so much, imagine the governments of the European Union, Ukraine, China and Brazil. It is quite reasonable to believe that these actors will also prepare and take measures. As I write, Ukraine is reassessing the peace proposal for the war with Russia, promoted by Brazil and China. The police are carrying out an operation against Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. The government coalition in Germany is falling apart.
In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, the politician who suffered the biggest defeat in the 2024 municipal elections, is once again being considered for 2026. The Lula government, which expected a race with few candidates, now faces the possibility of an election split to the right. What seemed bad could be advantageous.
Item three is the most important. In discussions about history, there is an anecdote about how if Cleopatra's nose had been smaller, her relationship with the Romans Julius Caesar and Mark Antony would have been different, and therefore the history of the world would have been very different. Speculations aside, what most trivial analyses hide is the extent of what is unknown, what cannot be predicted. We have difficulty dealing with this; we prefer history with a beginning, middle and end. For scientists, epidemics are certain, but the political world did not expect them, nor did it know how to deal with them. Unpredictable events, such as accidents, scandals, crises and catastrophes, can change our lives profoundly, but we rarely think about it.
Finally, we tend to have positive expectations about a given event and we become somewhat blind to how “that good thing” led us to other unpleasant scenarios. It is important to discuss our moral judgments, but history is not shaped by our morality. Only in the medium and long term is it possible to measure the scope of important changes. Ailton Krenak explains how attachment to our society prevents us from seeing the past and the future. Let us recognize that the future is uncertain, regardless of our predictions.
*Ronald Vizzoni Garcia holds a PhD in political science from the University Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro (IUPERJ/UCAM).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
