Daily Times

Good judgment is usually the result of experience. And experience is frequently the result of bad judgment — Robert A. Lovett.
What absolutely boggles the mind is that in spite of a plethora of data, ranging from history’s greatest blunders to its tiniest goof ups, judgments continue to tilt towards the atrocious. Guttenberg’s press may have been the forerunner for storing knowledge, but the Internet takes all the credit for mass dissemination thereof. Accordingly, industrial-man can legitimately site ignorance as an excuse for all fallacious actions of the 20th century. The term industrial-man, a derivative of cave man, was especially coined to highlight the quantitative and qualitative leaps in science and technology during the information-man’s era.
Today, a computer, Wi-Fi, Google or any other preferred search engine constitute WMI — Weapons of Mass Information. GPRS and Google Earth, or any similar software augments information to current and real time. Factor in Monte Carlo Simulation software and decisions made on this information can be analysed for outcomes and assessed for impact of risks. Unfathomably, even with this enviable arsenal, bad judgments continue to baffle. Well, in Pakistan’s case power shortage can be a credible excuse for an inaccessibility of WMI, but seriously!
Gurus of ‘what if’ scenarios would go barmy if they were challenged to postulate outcomes under a sequence of events envisaging WMI being available during World War II. Simplistically, with real time tracking, even conceiving Pearl Harbor would have been insane. Further reflections however identify a paradox.
If in theory, good judgment is directly proportionate to quality and quantity of related information, then the existence of WMI could have averted the great depression of the 1930s, except that the sub-prime crisis of 2008 remains inexplicable. Again, abundance of information would have pre-empted and/or negated any misadventure, thereby deeming World War II impossible, except that current conflicts are still baffling.
The riddle being, given an availability of 100 percent accurate information, is the decision a mere formality, i.e. anyone would come to the same conclusion? History’s response is, definitely not. Consider the first recorded speculative bubble, the Tulip mania that peeked around 1636. Yes, Tulips, the flowers grown in Holland. Anyone should have concluded that the price of a single bulb at 10 times the income of a skilled craftsman was definitively preposterous. Unfortunately, no one did and speculations abound on how long the bubble would have continued if the bubonic plague had not intervened.
Hindsight provides unforgiving post mortem of every speculative bubble in history. In all cases, unless they have already jumped from an office window, those who lose their shirt in the market always complain of temporary blindness and insanity brought about by greed.
Ever wonder why politicians and statesmen are generally imbecilic? For instance, take the leadership in the Middle East; the world media had made NATO’s intent more than obvious every time — what were they watching? Given that IMF’s first advice to struggling developing countries is to reduce the deficit and national debt, what was western leadership thinking during the double bill financial crises?
Why don’t our political parties learn from their own mistakes? Admittedly, this stint has surpassed the average term, but none seems the wiser. While the battle on non-issues continues for the benefit of the masses and analysts are abuzz with jargon such as street smart and morality, who is actually reading the writing on the wall?
Companies come and companies go; only a few remain profitable over time. Numerous biographies and books document the best and worst corporate decisions in history but still gaffes exceed the winners. Do CEOs not make informed decisions? Why do managements believe that they can commit the perfect fraud, considering the throng of the convicted? Curiously, the best of the best are bedazzled by self-generated fantastic forecasts, which other than misguiding actions serve no purpose.
Apparently, good judgment requires, in addition to 100 percent accurate information, unadulterated logic that mankind is incapable of. Peter Drucker may have been correct in his observation that a computer is a moron, but the bigger problem is the other moron.
Personal perceptions of aql-e-qul is the nemesis of logic. Vanity almost always prevails over common sense, which unfortunately is uncommon in any case. In spite of humongous historic evidence to the contrary, narcissist bred confidence leads to the misguided belief of having devised a strategy to beat all odds. Once an untenable position is adopted, explanations are created to justify incoherent actions. Culture drives the final nail in the coffin. Even when subordinates perceive a collision course, they rarely are discourteous enough to launch forcefully any opposition. The emperor will continue to prance around naked until someone points out what in substance was always starkly evident.
This someone is the devil’s advocate. According to Wikipedia, “In common parlance, a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position.”
The origins of the devil’s advocate can be traced back to the canonisation process of the Roman Catholic Church around the 16th century. The Promoter of the Faith (the Devil’s Advocate) was appointed by the Church to find inconsistencies and advertently oppose the case for a prospective saint. The effectiveness of this position can simply be gauged by the significant increase in canonisation of individuals after its abolition.
As a side note, the movie The Devil’s Advocate is amongst a personal list of all time favourites and as stated in an earlier article, the devil’s utterance: “Vanity, my favourite sin” is the highpoint of the movie.
Coming back to the debate, having a formal process of opposing any stratagem purely for the sake of opposition is far better than any subsequent negative criticism or ‘I told you so’ feedback. Charged with the specific responsibility of finding faults, the incumbent is expected to fearlessly perform this useful function of challenging his superiors. Realistically, while the creation of a devil’s advocate is imaginable in the corporate world either through a regulatory or management regime, it is extremely unlikely in the corridors of power.
Perhaps the electronic media can transit from its current role of an incessantly negative citric to a positive role of the devil’s advocate. Maybe a chat show involving the intelligentsia to find faults with perceived or stated government action can play the role of a devil’s advocate. Such an initiative will be far better than politically oriented or otherwise prejudiced, after the affect, criticism of mistakes, from which anyone hardly has the will to learn.

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad and can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com