Post hoc reasoning

This is a tendency by actors to find ample scope to “explain” events which have happened while often having very limited enthusiasm for, and even less success, by taking the risk inherent in making clear predictions about future events and showing a willingness to have their level of predictive validity thoroughly assessed and exposed afterwards – something which offers the prospect of genuine understanding.

Rather than really explaining anything this type of thinking provides a framework for rationalization. Post hoc: from the Latin for “after the fact”. For example, a psychic fails in some supernatural feat and responds by saying that there was too much “negative energy” present.

Some of those exhibiting more than a little post hoc reasoning include: Sports commentators, stock or financial markets' analysts, criminal profilers and their supporters, clinicians using the Rorschach, graphologists (not to be confused with expert handwriting analysts), polygraphists, dowsers, conspiracy theorists, and so on.

(see also: Hindsight bias, ad hoc, about predictiveness, believers, special pleading, JFK assassination, overconfidence, Forer (Barnum) effect, Confirmation bias, Belief perserverance, belief bias, cognitive bias, Selective exposure, thinking error, critical thinking, wishful thinking, Nostradamus effect, expectations, Post hoc ergo propter hoc)

Back to: Glossary A-Z

Glossary of selected Judgement & Decision-making, Belief-related, and other Psychology terms A-Z »

» Return to belief, judgement, and clear thinking »