In statistics, the idea we associate with the word ‘possible’ has a value of zero in most contexts. For example, with a data set of 1, the probability is 0. There is one planet with life that we know of, and without a second one, the statistical probability of their being life on other worlds is: 0. So, in terms of probability, we should be careful not to confuse ‘possible’ with ‘likely’… yet in many of our evaluations, this is precisely what takes place in our minds.

Our cultures and languages train to us think in terms of probabilities (which, statistically, have essentially zero meaning for individuals, whose actual lives and situations are almost explicitly unpredictable). But they train us very poorly; inclining us to use this kind of thinking to attack ourselves, each other, and our futures… as well as to ‘predict’ all sorts of dire outcomes that actually never occur. We are inclined to confuse the possible for the actual, and the probable with the real.

When we are using our imaginations to explore ‘what is possible’… especially if we are concerned about the thing we are examining, we are prone to dramatic errors of predictive efficacy. An common example is someone thinking about whether or not it is possible that someone will judge something about their looks or behavior negatively. It is a simple matter to imagine that ‘they might’, but there is no actual statistical probability here, because there is no actual cohort being examined. Essentially, we do these kinds of analyses ‘without any data’ and then pretend we had some since we can imagine a cohort that might respond in the way that concerns us (especially socially).

So we are playing double make-believe. First, with the invented data, and again, with the importance we ascribe to the ‘result’.

If we are going to go around imagining dire consequences, we might take heart and benefit from both realizing that this is largely the invention of an aspect of our minds I refer to as ‘the threat sentinel’, and that we can as easily imagine positive futures… for example, others who judge us as beautiful, exciting, unique, amazing and desirable.

And I must suggest that we should.

After all, the threat sentinel is ‘funded’ by concern (like our prison/military/industrial complex), so, if it can scare us… it grows, and gets more power. What would happen if we were able to consciously reverse this process in our minds and cultures? One answer is: something a lot more intelligent and humane than what happens under its rule.

So, if we’re going to essentially make stuff up, we would benefit from ‘foreseeing’ possibilities that inspire and encourage us and others with whom we may actually relate in our lives. And this activity would be involved in assisting us not merely in predicting our futures… but informing them.

Why? The imagination is a profoundly powerful faculty, but it’s track record related to dire predictions coming true is fundamentally untrustworthy; even if it occasionally manages to accurately foresee some future event, it is often complicit in producing the event that later is seen as ‘evidence that the predictions were valid’. To understand this more clearly: when a nation invests in the possibility of war, it becomes directly involved in actions that radically increase… or even demand… the fulfillment of this possibility.

As you can see, this is not properly prediction at all… because our orientations incline us to participate not merely in the prediction of futures… but in their production.