Imagine this: You host a gathering at your local Gentilly neighborhood bar. You’ve done the sensible things, your bar has its own security, and for this special event, you even hire extra officers to ensure everything stays orderly. The night unfolds. There’s a minor disagreement, maybe a scuffle or two, but nothing escalates. Everyone leaves safely, the streets remain calm ... the event is, by any measure, a success.
Now, imagine that same night, somewhere in Westwego, a burglary occurs. And under the news coverage, someone comments: “Well, there was a party in Gentilly last night, so that must have caused the burglary in Westwego.”
Pause. Think. Does that even make sense? Logically? Geographically? Contextually?
This is precisely the point I’m making: assigning blame or predicting chaos based on proximity or association, when no causation exists.. is not critical thinking. It’s fear dressed as reasoning, hysteria masquerading as insight. Observing calm where chaos was predicted is not complaint. It’s evidence. It’s reality-checking.
If you can’t see the difference between preparation and inevitability, between correlation and causation, then maybe, just maybe, you’re part of the problem you claim to be analyzing.
No comments:
Post a Comment