Hindsight is bad, foresight is good, trust is the best

Harri Jalonen
25.8.2021

You do not have to be Einstein to understand, that decisions are always a product of their time. It is likewise understandable, that the decision-making moment is the culmination in a continuum, and is both preceded and followed by something. An ancient Greek philosopher might say, that no one steps in the same river twice. In lieu of the aforementioned, societal discussions are often confusing to follow, where past decisions based on the best knowledge available at the time are torn apart after the fact. With this I am not trying to undermine the importance of critical analysis but rather be humble before the fact that decisions are always made without knowledge of what the future looks like. Unfortunately, us humans have a tendency for hindsight, which Veikko Huovinen’s fictive character Konsta Pylkkänen describes as sappy, because “there the occurrence is a thing of the past, but imagined to occur in the future, and then the masses together try to figure out how to best behave.”

The COVID-pandemic provides a good opportunity to examine the relationship between knowledge, time and decision-making. Countless times since the beginning of the year 2020, we have seen experts and decision-makers in situations where it is evident that decisions are made fully knowing that things might turn our wholly differently than projected or hoped for in the moment the decision was made.

In my opinion, it is useful to turn to moral and political philosopher John Rawls’ (1921-2020) idea of the veil of ignorance. With the veil of ignorance Rawls refers to situations where people have to come up with common rules, imagining that they themselves do not know their own place in society. According to Rawls, people end up with a solution that is most optimal for all. In other words, no one is tempted to cheat the system, as they have to account for the possibility that the negative consequences of cheating might fall upon themselves. 

The veil of ignorance in times of the corona pandemic means accepting the fact that decisions have to be taken in situations of prevailing uncertainty. There is no shortage of hard questions: What social and economic consequences does a societal shut down have? Do vaccines work? How will the virus change? Is working from home the new normal even post-pandemic? The thought of an interconnectedness of fates between actors forms a part of the veil of ignorance. Vaccination enthusiasm is upheld by (rightfully so) reminding people of the fact that no one is safe until everyone is safe. One after another, politicians keep reminding us that especially those in vulnerable positions must be taken care of. The greatest concern in the beginning of the pandemic was over the elderly and then over the children and youth, when closing schools.

Decisions are always based on incomplete information (see e.g. Herbert A. Simon’s Nobel lecture from 1978). In a situation such as a pandemic, the incompleteness of information is always exceptionally large. There is however no such option as not making decisions in these extremely fast changing situations. Rightfully so, people have the right to assume that politicians and the authorities are at least doing their very best. 

It has been proven by innovation research, that the most impactful decisions during a process of innovation are almost without fail taken in the beginning of the process. This is due to the fact, that every decision taken reduces the number of options to choose from further down the line. The operating system of a phone for example dictates, what is seen on the screen. Nothing happens in a vacuum – a decision-making process never starts from a clean slate, but always within the realm of previous decisions, whether knowingly or unintentionally made decisions. What makes it all so wicked, is that the passage of time and progress in the process lead to growth in both the amount and quality of knowledge. Hence, the below visualised paradox is complete. A bit exaggeratingly one might say, that the most meaningful decisions, that confine future decisions, are made in circumstances where most ignorance prevails (read more about the causes and consequences of ignorance in this IRWIN-blog).

Let us go back in time to January 2020, when the first coronavirus case in Finland was detected from a Chinese tourist visiting Lapland. The masses were blissfully unaware of what was to come. Even experts were faced with a wholly new situation. Back then, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, for example, estimated that “the risk for the spread of the disease in Finland is very small” and that there was no need to worry (HS 29.1.2021). In hindsight, what makes the review of these events awkward is not the lack of expertise, but rather the nature of the situation. It is true that for years epidemiologists around the globe have warned about the emergence of an apocalyptical disease-X (e.g. Garrett 2019) and many countries already had strategies in place in the event of a pandemic. However, “knowing” is often far away from meaningful doing. This is evident for anyone that has ever made a new year’s resolution of learning a new language.

Finland has often been described as a superpower of foresight and has been seen as the model country of preparedness. Despite all this, the coronavirus managed to catch even us red handed. It looks as though even Finland as a society has some way to go before reaching the by Konsta Pylkkänen described providence where “things are premeditated and the dynamic situation is viewed in a way, that when things do occur, the different options of dealing with it are clear”.

There has been a lot of bickering and many problems with the exchange of information and knowledge between different authorities. The further away we have come from the state of emergency, that prevailed in the spring of 2020, the more politicians have used the situation to take jabs at each other. It has sometimes felt as though the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Interpretations of legislation have varied between authorities and there has been room for improvement in some areas of citizen communication. (These are discussed in the Parliament’s Future Committee’s report and in the Safety Investigation Authority’s assessment report). Pandemic governance has not been made any easier by the staggering amount of mis- and disinformation that has been spread to us both from home and abroad (see e.g. the Pelastetaan lapset-website, Vitality-project’s weekly briefings).

Despite our shortcomings, as a nation, Finland has excelled in pandemic governance when comparing our actions internationally. How come? According to the OECD, one of the explanatory factors is Finns' trust in social institutions. Perhaps trust can be seen figuratively as a stage master or a whisperer that breaks the curtain of ignorance in a way that does not reveal what is to come, but still helps us function in situations where knowledge is ever-changing and replenishing.

Harri Jalonen, Professor, University of Vaasa

* The following source has been utilized in the figure: Moensted, M. (2006) High-tech, uncertainty and innovation: the opportunity for high-tech entrepreneurship. Teoksessa Bernansconi, M., Harris, S. & Moensted (toim.) High-tech Entrepreneurship. Managing Innovation, Variety and Uncertainty, 15–32. London: Routledge.