We've all heard the phrase "history repeats itself". Often uttered by middle school teachers trying to convince their students of the value of their education, this saying does bear some truth. There are clear similarities between Napoleon and Hitler's attempted invasions of Russia, greatly hyped ships sinking such as the Titanic and the Vasa, and The Great Depression compared to 2008's Great Recession. Even much smaller cultural aspects, such as fashion and beauty trends, recycle over time. It makes sense for people to use their understanding of history to make predictions about the future.

However, no matter how well informed our predictions are, they are still merely guesses. Remember the group of people warning that the world was supposed to end in 2012? Thankfully, they were misinformed. But why do we feel the need to make proclamations rather than simply living in the moment and waiting to see what will come? As naturally curious creatures, people are often searching for some semblance of control. "We have a strong psychological aversion to uncertainty," author Dan Gardner told us in our interview with him. "We really hate being unsure! That aversion is so strong that even being told that something bad definitely will happen can feel better than being told that something bad may possibly happen," he explained. If believing we know something about the future can provide a bit of comfort, the temptation to lean into this hope is understandable. Many people love to read their horoscopes and have tarot readings for the same reason.

When we asked Gardner for his expert opinion on what makes us so susceptible to believing false predictions, he told us to first "be careful about what is and isn't possible about prediction". "We can forecast on smaller scales and shorter time frames," he explained. "But we cannot forecast the really big stuff, over the longer time frames, that we most want to forecast!" A tip he gave to remember this is to "think of weather forecasts". "They're actually quite reliable looking a day or two or three ahead. But looking weeks ahead, they're useless. How far ahead we can forecast varies greatly by subject matter but the bottom line is this: Our ability to foresee the future is quite limited -- and it is only a tiny fraction of our desire to foresee the future!"

He went on to say that there is a clear root cause for people falling prey to predictions that they absolutely should not believe, predictions like "here's what the global economy will look like in 2050!". It goes back to psychology.

"When we are confronted with some major, frightening changes-- like when a crazy man takes office or a pandemic breaks out or a war erupts -- we look into the future and we see that there's a huge number of paths the course of history may take. There's so much uncertainty! That is profoundly unsettling so we go looking for something that will sweep away the uncertainty and replace it with the feeling of knowing." Gardner went on to explain the various coping mechanisms people are likely to take when overwhelmed with the unknown. The first example he notes is finding "a particularly dogmatic form of religion". "Another thing that can replace uncertainty is a conspiracy theory that claims to explain everything. And there's good evidence that interest in dogmatic religion and conspiracy theories goes up during heightened uncertainty."

Lastly, he told us, "A third thing that can sweep away uncertainty is experts who make predictions." But not just any expert will do, he elaborated. "The sort of expert who says 'maybe' or 'it's possible' a lot will not sweep away uncertainty." Only an extremely confident expert will put minds at ease. "They KNOW what's coming! And they have a simple, clear, conclusive story to explain it. That sort of expert gives us the certainty we psychologically crave." This confidence can be comforting initially, but Gardner is sure to note the facts. "Unfortunately, research also shows that the predictions of that sort of expert are especially likely to be wrong."

When asked if humans have become any better at making predictions in recent years, given the rapid advancements of science and technology, Gardner replied, "Yes, we have seen some improvements in forecasting thanks to science and technology. But they tend to be small, incremental improvements." "And every additional advance is harder to make than the improvements that preceded it," he added. He used weather forecasting over the past 100 years as an example. "The bottom line: We are somewhat better at forecasting than we were in the past but we are still pretty bad at it and the big things that we most want to forecast -- 'What will Russia look like in 10 years? Is the era of globalization over? Will our children be poorer than we are?' -- are all far beyond our power to predict."

Given his expertise on the topic, we asked Gardner if he finds it difficult to avoid making predictions in a society that seems perpetually obsessed with what is coming next. "The really frustrating thing is that it's impossible to NOT make predictions," he explained. "All of our decisions, explicitly or implicitly, are based on expectations of future conditions. That is, forecasts. There's no way around it. If you set a time and place to meet someone for a beer after work, your expectations of when work will end, how much traffic there will be, how busy the pub will be, etc, are all part of your decision. And they're all forecasts." His advice in a world consumed by prediction is to "recognize that we are making forecasts all the time and learn to distinguish between those that people can reasonably make (when traffic will be busy, for example) and those that we cannot possibly make with any accuracy (how strong the economy will be in a decade)." When it comes to making important decisions, Gardner says that we must "develop the habit of thinking that the future could unfold across a very wide range. So it's not one future you want to predict and prepare for. It's a great many futures. Or to put that more simply, for the big picture stuff, we have to stop thinking of 'one future' and think of, and prepare, for 'many futures'."

If you are interested in delving deeper into the elusive prediction after finishing this article, be sure to check out Dan Gardner's books or his newsletter "PastPresentFuture".

Unfortunately, making false forecasts is still the norm rather than the exception. Our brains are full of biases that make it extremely hard to make predictions, even when adequate information is available. "For example, psychologists have shown that people very easily convince themselves that a random bit of good luck was, in fact, the result of skill," Gardner mentioned in a previous interview. "Even when the task at hand is guessing which side of a coin will turn up when it is flipped - the very symbol of randomness - people are easily convinced that their correct guesses were the result of skill, not luck." 

In her article "The Psychology of Prediction", Morgan Housel sheds light on many facets of our belief in predictions. One thing she notes is that "credibility is not impartial". "Your willingness to believe a prediction is influenced by how much you need that prediction to be true." For example, when we are in desperate situations, we are much more susceptible to believing grand predictions. A notable historical example of this is The Great Plague of London in 1665.   

When writing about the Great Plague of London in 1722, Daniel Defoe wrote, "The people were more addicted to prophecies and astrological conjurations, dreams, and old wives’ tales than ever they were before or since … almanacs frighted them terribly … the posts of houses and corners of streets were plastered over with doctors’ bills and papers of ignorant fellows, quacking and inviting the people to come to them for remedies, which was generally set off with such flourishes as these: Infallible preventive pills against the plague. Neverfailing preservatives against the infection. Sovereign cordials against the corruption of the air." Over the course of 18 months, this plague wiped out a quarter of London. It was only natural for these people to grasp to any sliver of hope they could find.

Another factor is "outcome-irrelevant learning". This is when people essentially cherry pick information from a historical event to confirm their own ideas and biases. It reinforces one's confidence in their predictions through the belief that evidence is on their side. History does repeat itself, but often we do not realize a historical event is recurring until it has already begun. Even our instincts create biases. One 2008 study investigating how "free" our decision making truly is found that "the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity up to ten seconds before it enters awareness". It must be extremely difficult to predict the future with a range of subconscious biases clouding our judgement. 

As entertaining as it can be to poke fun at past generations for their expectations of the future, we can't really blame them for their now hilarious ideas. I'm sure many of us know the feeling of innocently opening Facebook and being smacked in the face by the "Memory" of a 10-year-old status that's now painfully cringey to read. My prediction for the future is that our current projections will be met with the same laughter we now direct towards the 90's. Times change rapidly, but we do know that the future is a mystery to us all.

And PS, we likely won't be too proud of our current fashion choices twenty years from now either.