Prospection: looking into the future

All animals can predict the “hedonic” (ie pleasant or unpleasant) consequences of events they have experienced before. But humans differ because we are able to predict how future events will play out without having previously experienced anything similar. We experience the future, so to speak, by simulating it in our brains.

This is what Daniel Gilbert et al. for "prospecting”. Something he defines as "looking forward". In other words, the opposite of "retrospection" which means "to look back".

He investigates how we use our memory and our understanding of context in both the past and the possible future to develop a simulation of what the future might look like. This also involves an emotional element, which he calls “prefeeling”, where we try to create an emotional simulation of our future experience, to find out whether the event is a threat or a reward.

Gilbert shows that our ability to predict the future is only reliable as long as the emotions and context are the same when we imagine the experience and when we experience it in reality.

According to Gilbert, there are four mistakes in our "prospecting":

1. Simulations are not representative. We create our simulations from our memories. But these are not accurate pictures of the past, i.a. because we tend to over- or under-estimate the significance of an experience. We do not remember the most representative event, but the most recent, worst or best. For example, when you ask people who have been late for a train in the past to imagine being late in the future, they remember their worst experience of being late more than their most typical experience. They therefore overestimate how bad it will be to be late for the train.
2. Simulations are essentializing: When simulating future events, we generally recreate only the most essential elements and leave out the less important ones. For example, when we imagine "going to the theater next week", we do not imagine all the details of the experience. On the other hand, we imagine the most important things that define "going to the theater": We imagine the stage full of actors, but we don't imagine how to park the car, check in the jacket or find our seat. The problem with such simplifications is that the omitted elements can have a large impact on the future event. This essentialization of events is reinforced the further into the future the event takes place. And that's one of the reasons why you promise to attend events that you regret when the time comes for you to attend them.
3. Simulations are abbreviated. If we were to imagine everything that has to happen during an event, the simulation would take as long as the event itself. Therefore, simulations are of course abbreviated to represent a number of important moments in a future event. And we tend to focus especially on the early moments. For example, it is much easier to imagine how you feel 7 days after you win a million than how you feel on the two hundred and forty-fourth. This shortening means that we may place too much emphasis on the period of greatest pain or pleasure.
4. Simulation is decontextualizing. Typically, we do not take into account how contextual factors (whether we are hungry, happy, tired, bad weather or heavy traffic) affect our actions and emotions. Although contextual factors such as the weather or the traffic situation could have a significant impact on the future, we ignore it if it is not present in the present. When contextual factors are considered more closely, our predictions become more accurate.

Two exercises that make your predictions more accurate.

So how can we improve our ability to predict the future and achieve a greater match between our present and future selves? According to Geoff Grahl, the solution is quite simple:

When you are faced with deciding whether or not to do something in the future, try to imagine yourself doing it now. If you e.g. has promised a friend to help move next month, so imagine the move will happen this weekend. Do you have the resources to do it now? If not, then you should consider what needs to happen between now and a month from now to make it possible.

At an organizational level, this can be more difficult, as the strategic planning processes are organized according to more linear and structured work processes. Aside from choosing a more “brain-friendly” way to strategize, there is one tool that can help you make more realistic predictions of the future. Geoff Grahl calls the method "reverse visioning".

In all its simplicity, it involves the strategy team periodically looking back over the past period to determine what events have led them to the current situation.

Source: The Neuroscience of Strategy: Do You Really Know Your (Future) Self? (Geoff Grahl – NeuroCapability)