I Told You So - Dylan's rant - Opinionbox

Hello, my name is Dylan Raub, and this is my rant. Some of you may already be aware of the fact that when someone tells you "I told you so," it really has a tendency to [BLEEP] you off. And, to be fair, that's understandable. They were rubbing whatever-it-was in so they could get a second rise out of you for their enjoyment and you know what... that's just mean. Just a side-note: a lot of us do this without even realizing it and unfortunately I'm actually guilty of this. But here's something to consider: when is it actually okay to get mad at somebody when they say "I told you so?" My take on it may surprise you but before we get into that let's talk about statitistics! Look, I know this sounds like it's going to be boring but just bear with me, okay? For a lot of people we think that statistics means that we take a measurement of how often something happens in the real world and then we make a tally and we get like a percentage or something, and we can use that percentage to say "Well, this is how- approximately how often this event occurs, as opposed to not occurring." But this is only a very small part of statistics, actually. I'd like to talk about a different. A part that's actually pretty much the opposite of what I just described. Instead I'd like to talk about how we can use statistics to explain real-world occurrences. Now one example that has recently become really popular is the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, though some people like to call it a paradox but I'm not gonna go there... Now Erwin Schrodinger was a physicist of the 1930s and he was studying quantum mechanics along side Albert Einstein. They worked together to come up with this thought experiment to help people understand quantum mechanics in a broad, macro scale sense. Quite simply, the experiment went something like this: you imagine Schrodinger placing his cat in a box. Inside of this box there's a random number generator, a hammer, and a vial of poison. The random number generator is set so that it'll drop the hammer on the poison - killing the cat - if it hits a specified number. Imagine he places a lid on the box. He sits on the lid and make you wait for an hour. After that time has passed he asks "is the cat alive or dead?" Naturally, you'd want to open the box to check before you give him an answer, but Schrodinger explains that you don't really know whether or not the cat is alive until you've opened the box and peered inside. Until you've done that, it's better to think of the cat as both dead and alive. Why? Because it could go either way. Once a situation has been set up were multiple scenarios could play out, it's better to prepare for all of them rather than just one. But this example is it really meant for statistical purposes. Rather it's actually meant for quantum-mechanical purposes. For that reason, I'm going to dumb it down a little. May I present to you my coin thought experiment. Now you can see that this coin has two sides; one that we like to call heads and another that we like to call tails. The moment the coin leaves my hand, it is put into a situation where multiple outcomes could occur but we won't know what it is going to be until it has landed on my palm and I look at it. We do know that there's a 50-50 chance at the coin will land on heads or tails but only one outcome can occur and we won't know what it is until we check. This idea can actually be used in real-world examples even if we don't know the odds of something happening. But that's what makes it interesting because we can define what could happen ahead of time and then watch to see what actually does happen. Alright, so let's go back to where we started: the question was "when is it okay for you to get mad at your friend when they say 'I told you so'" or, for that matter, "when is it okay for your friend to get mad at you when you say 'I told you so'?" There's something to think about. But the answer is really simple: it all depends on the situation beforehand... ...but not the outcome. Here's a rather extreme example: you and your friend are at the top of a hill. At the foot of the hill is a highway. Your friend gets on a bike and tells you "I bet I can ride over the highway without getting hit by a car." Before you can say anything he takes off down the hill and, well... I'm not actually going to say what the outcome is because the outcome, like I'd said, doesn't matter! Okay, well it does matter but only because one of the outcomes resulting in your friend being hurt severely and possibly... dead. But what happened was when your friend started down the hill he had placed himself in a situation where multiple outcomes could occur: he could ride across the highway unharmed, he could get hit by a car and be harmed, or he could chicken out and stop the bike before he reaches the highway. With this in mind, lets say you actually did say something to your friend before they went down the hill. Let's say you said "I bet you can't." Even though this makes you a terrible friend, you've actually just made the same mistake that your friend did. So he goes down the hill after you both make the bet and he doesn't make it across unharmed... ...or he just chickens out. So you've won the bet and you say to your friend "I told you so." Your friend has every reason to get mad at you. Not just because you're a huge [BLEEP]-hole and the worst friend ever, but because several situations could have played out. It just happened to be the one we're your friend got hurt... ...or he chickened out. Alright so let's rewind a little... You and your friend just made the bet and he takes off down the hill. He makes it across unharmed and, later on, he tells you "I told you so." [Groan] Woo-hoo-hoo! Since your friend agreed to the bet, you have every right to get mad at them, because multiple situations could have played out. Really the only way that you could possibly succeed in this situation is if you didn't agree to a bet. That way you don't have a reason to say "I told you so" and if your friend does, you have every right to get mad at them. There is, however, one other type of situation that can occur, and that's where you get duped. Here's another example... Hey, dude. Okay, so check this out: I bet that I can put a dollar on top of this lid right here, and then put some quarters on it and then with one finger I can remove the dollar without disturbing the quarters. You're on! Alright! Let's do it. Alright, let's put that on top of there, and lets put the quarters on... [Laughing] I got it! I got it! In this situation, your friend can actually say "I told you so" and you don't have a reason to get mad at them. You were foolish enough to fall for their trick where only one situation can occur. This would be like if the coin from earlier was double-sided; there's only one outcome. In that situation it would be completely your fault. Though, then again, they did pocket five dollars, so I guess that's a reason enough to get mad at them. [Snickers] My name is Dylan Raub, and that was my rant.