"
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Jeannette Rankin
In February 2024, we opened "
Cogent Analysis" with an important distinction worth repeating here in full:
Quote:
"How can you tell the difference between an analyst and an advocate? It is all in the handling of data that runs counter to assertion. To an analyst, being wrong is disappointing, but it is primarily an opportunity to learnan expected element in a feedback loop of continuous improvement. When knowledge is your only objective, there is no such thing as a bad fact, only one which you do not yet understand. Not so for the advocate. The advocate has tied their hopes (and often their livelihoods) to a specific outcome and feels compelled, whether consciously or not, to rationalize away or attack inconvenient realities. It is advocacy when every perturbation in the weather is tagged as evidence of climate change, each squiggle of unfavorable price action is declared market manipulation, and no act or utterance from a favored politician is disqualifying."
Few events blur the line between analysis and advocacy as thoroughly as war, especially for those with strong personal or ideological ties to the combatants. The challenge is compounded by the relentless flood of propaganda from both sides, making it difficult to distinguish signal from noise. The rise of social media and the growing sophistication of AI-generated images and videos only deepen the confusion, allowing partisans to inhabit parallel realities. In such an environment, even attempting impartial analysis risks drawing ire from those fully invested in their chosen worldview.