> Both teams played by the same rules and then time ran out and the other team won and it doesn't matter how they won. Future predictions should be based on the

> Both teams played by the same rules and then time ran out and the other team won and it doesn't matter how they won. Future predictions should be based on the win. > You were late to the job interview because you're a person that screws times up. That's much more useful information than anything you could have contributed at the interview. I simply don't agree with either conclusion. If you want to assess the likelihood of a team winning future games based on them winning a particular past game, it absolutely matters how they won that particular past game. If they won through superior skill, strategy and athleticism, one would reach different conclusions than if they won because the opposing team all had food poisoning the night before and only got a few hours sleep, or the opposing team captain broke her leg in the first minute. I agree that people are not good at assessing the degree to which particular events are due to intrinsic factors vs. random or external factors, and that people are biased to believe events that they believe are undesirable are caused more by random factors and events they believe are desirable are caused more by intrinsic factors. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to make such determinations with some degree of accuracy and impartiality. If "the A train had a malfunction" has a reasonable likelihood of occurring (e.g. it breaks down once a month), then perhaps it's reasonable to conclude that someone who is late to an important event because the A train broke down didn't plan their time in an optimal way. But if "the A train had a malfunction" means "the A train broke down while I was riding it to an important interview, and there was no way for me to disembark, and I was trapped for eight hours", that doesn't mean the person who got trapped is bad at planning their time. It means that person was unlucky, and a chaotic, unpredictable event had a negative impact on them. Turning up eight hours early to every single important event to avoid the tiny chance of a random eight-hour delay spoiling things is, over the course of a lifetime, a worse strategy than turning up one hour early to important events and accepting the slim chance that you might occasionally miss an important event. > This insistence (I am, myself, guilty) to look for exceptionalism in results rather than accept the obvious data that are being shown to us is something we need to become aware of - and avoid. But equally, the natural human tendency to believe "everything happens for a reason", and to downplay the (huge) role of randomness on the outcome of all human affairs, is also something to be aware of and avoid.