I like pattern recognition (economics and natural sciences) as well as pattern prediction (F. A. Hayek).
However, I hold the view that we tend to see what we want to see and we risk mixing correlation and causation, better to say: patterns do not tell us enough about causation.
There is the famous saying: history does not repeat itself, it rhymes. However, if we do not the system's dynamic, it is difficult to predict the future, especially when it comes to more than just patterns, but specific developments.
History is obviously important for understanding the present. History is prologue. In the Middle East new alliances have been forming for years, and the influence of Arab states via think tanks in the US is a long established phenomenon. The Middle East has basically been a crisis hotspot since at least 1948. The US has intervened directly (1953), 1958 & 1982–1984, 1991, 2003–2011, (2001-2021), 2014 - (Iran), Lebanon, Iraq, Iraq again, (Afghanistan), Syria.
For several years now, narratives have been playing a relevant role in economics as a “new” topic. Sometimes patterns are enough, sometimes they need to be questioned, and it is always important to know when to do which.
Hi Michael, thank you for sharing such a thoughtful and grounded reflection. I completely agree—patterns are not proof of causation, and relying on them too rigidly can lead to oversimplification. History doesn’t repeat, and even its rhyme is often distorted by the present moment.
But what I find valuable is not using patterns to forecast precise events, but rather to sense the contours of momentum. Patterns can give us orientation—a bearing in the fog. Not to predict exactly what’s next, but to better understand how systems respond under pressure, where stories are recycled, and where our attention is being directed.
Like you, I’ve come to appreciate that details matter deeply for policy, but they can sometimes obscure larger shifts in sentiment, psychology, and strategic intent. The public rarely moves based on details—it moves on narrative force. And narratives tend to follow arcs that repeat in structure if not in substance. That’s why I find the broader lens helpful: it doesn’t tell me what will happen, but it often shows why certain stories are being told now, and where that narrative might want to lead us.
We can study history as cause and consequence—or we can also ask: what patterns are reemerging because they serve a purpose in this moment? That purpose, I think, is where the insight lies.
I like pattern recognition (economics and natural sciences) as well as pattern prediction (F. A. Hayek).
However, I hold the view that we tend to see what we want to see and we risk mixing correlation and causation, better to say: patterns do not tell us enough about causation.
There is the famous saying: history does not repeat itself, it rhymes. However, if we do not the system's dynamic, it is difficult to predict the future, especially when it comes to more than just patterns, but specific developments.
History is obviously important for understanding the present. History is prologue. In the Middle East new alliances have been forming for years, and the influence of Arab states via think tanks in the US is a long established phenomenon. The Middle East has basically been a crisis hotspot since at least 1948. The US has intervened directly (1953), 1958 & 1982–1984, 1991, 2003–2011, (2001-2021), 2014 - (Iran), Lebanon, Iraq, Iraq again, (Afghanistan), Syria.
For several years now, narratives have been playing a relevant role in economics as a “new” topic. Sometimes patterns are enough, sometimes they need to be questioned, and it is always important to know when to do which.
Hi Michael, thank you for sharing such a thoughtful and grounded reflection. I completely agree—patterns are not proof of causation, and relying on them too rigidly can lead to oversimplification. History doesn’t repeat, and even its rhyme is often distorted by the present moment.
But what I find valuable is not using patterns to forecast precise events, but rather to sense the contours of momentum. Patterns can give us orientation—a bearing in the fog. Not to predict exactly what’s next, but to better understand how systems respond under pressure, where stories are recycled, and where our attention is being directed.
Like you, I’ve come to appreciate that details matter deeply for policy, but they can sometimes obscure larger shifts in sentiment, psychology, and strategic intent. The public rarely moves based on details—it moves on narrative force. And narratives tend to follow arcs that repeat in structure if not in substance. That’s why I find the broader lens helpful: it doesn’t tell me what will happen, but it often shows why certain stories are being told now, and where that narrative might want to lead us.
We can study history as cause and consequence—or we can also ask: what patterns are reemerging because they serve a purpose in this moment? That purpose, I think, is where the insight lies.
Thanks again for engaging so generously.