Suppose you were at a casino, and you had the choice to gamble with a 1/1000 chance of winning 100x the amount you spent.
Statistics was not on your side. For every 10 chips you bet, you would have “won” 1 chip.
But, suppose circumstances then were that if you were to bet five times, then you would have won all the five times.
Thing is, you didn’t know that. Based on the information available to you at that moment, there was a 1/1000 chance of winning and 999/1000 chance of losing.
The best action you could’ve took in that situation was to place your bet, because out of extraordinary luck, you would have won.
But that wasn’t the correct action, because you didn’t know you could win. You didn’t have any special insight at all that guaranteed your winning.
The correct action to take was to walk away.
We should all strive to do what is correct, not what is best, because the correct action is the action that generally benefits us the most, even if it doesn’t result in the best possible outcome for a specific circumstance, because cumulatively, the correct action will eventually pay for the opportunity costs of missing the best action.
Consider this variation on Pascal’s Wager: If you jumped off the empire state building at the next new year’s eve without a parachute, there’s an ever so slight chance that an eternal being will spot you and for whatever reason grant you superpowers and immortality, preventing you from plummeting to your doom.
There’s no way to disprove my theory, because all your so-called evidence was about people jumping off different buildings, plus non of them ever jumped in [current year +1] new year’s eve.
I mean, who knows, maybe the best possibility is indeed to jump off empire state in the next new year’s eve and become superman, but everything we know overwhelmingly suggests that won’t be the case, and thus such a gamble is completely incorrect.
People always bitch about history.
But those events are in the past. Many of the people involved did the right thing. It just wasn’t the best possible action they could have taken, because they didn’t have the luxury of retrospect. We can’t do anything about the past (aside from cover it up/ rewrite history etc but you get what I’m trying to say). But there’s something we can do about the future. When we refine our logic and improve our thinking, we are ever so slightly nudging correct decision closer and closer to best decision.
It’s never a good idea to act in contrary of all known information. Generally speaking, the more we know, the better our decisions are.