Denouncing decisions made in the past without empathy is a sure way to be surprised when a bubble bursts.
Bubbles are created when we think we have predictive powers about future events, that we don’t. And then, we proceed to tell stories and build narratives that back up the “reality” of those bubbles in our heads.
This would be fine if it were an isolated incident.
Unfortunately, everybody’s doing it.
See, since no person knows the future (and a majority of people tend to denounce the past without learning from it), the chances of the narrative bubble we’re living in being the only bubble (and by extension the right bubble) are pretty slim.
There are other ways to be surprised when our bubble bursts, either collectively, or individually:
- Lacking curiosity to explore alternatives—or even hear of them—from people with other narratives, who we find abhorrent, or wrong.
- Assuming only one outcome to a conflict, a decision, or even a problem is the “right” one.
- Manipulating available (and unavailable) information to “get consensus” from a fickle and wavering crowd.
- Presuming that since we’ve already heard an alternative solution one time, that the next time we hear it, it will be the same as before. And thus dismissing important information we’d rather not consider.
The really humbling (or humiliating) point to consider is that bubbles invariably burst.
The presence of a bubble, whether an information bubble, or a narrative bubble, almost always ensures that there will be a resounding “pop” when the bubble bursts.
The only compelling question coming out of that burst bubble is: Are we going to learn from the bubble bursting, or are we going to continue to commit the logical and emotional fallacies that got us to “bubble-based thinking” in the first place?