The Only Bad Piggy is No Piggy
There is an adage I heard once that goes like this, "Good news is great, bad news is good, and no news is bad." So, bad news is just news, like a spotted piggy with a party hat is just another pig at the party. If the party is the news cycle, and the pigs are the story, the only bad piggy at the party is no piggy at the party.
I've observed something like this to be true. In social media; how authentically one handles bad news can actually end up being good for their brand as a whole. Admitting a mistake, apologizing for bad service, committing to improving on what a customer has complained about, instead of being defensive, work very well right now. It seems to me that whenever Bitcoin is found high up in the news cycle, even if there is bad news, there soon follows a period of overall growth in the market capitalization of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It is just like the adage. And while we all would prefer the news regarding Bitcoin to be the good news piggy, when the bad news piggy arrives, it might be interesting to watch and take note as to how the overall general awareness of cryptocurrency rises.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
One logical point should be considered here. The logical reality of "post hoc ergo propter hoc," a Latin concept that kind of translates like "first this happened, so then this happened." The literal translation is, "after this, therefore because of this." The fact that one thing happens and then another thing happens does not mean there is an actual correlation between the two, or a causation of the second by the first. Hence, just because I seem to see a relationship between a sudden increase in market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, and any big news at all about Bitcoin or others, doesn't mean there is a causation. I do find it interesting that it seems to be happening, and will be interested to see if anyone does any study on the matter.
In my experience, "post hoc ergo propter hoc is the most common logical error to which I see us all fall prey. In my years of working in the information technology industry, I can't tell you how many people have asked me things like, "I was doing something on my computer and then it crashed. did I do it?" or, "I don't know what I did, but the internet is down. Did I break the internet?" Almost every time, the thing they thought they did did not cause the problem, it was just that the problem happened at the same time they were doing something coincidentally. One person insisted that they clicked their mouse and the computer crashed. He insisted on getting a new mouse.
A Couple Funny but Related Stories
I once made a boss of mine laugh hard due to this weakness in our natural perception. He was showing me how to magnetize screwdriver by coiling wire around it and then quickly touching the wire to both the positive and negative poles of a car battery. He held the wire to the negative pole. He smiled and blurted out, "Watch this." He then touched the wire to the positive pole and there was a loud and bright spark. Suddenly, the sky went dark as a huge ominous cloud passed across the sun. We both looked up... and then we both looked at each other; amazed by the speed at which daylight turned to darkness. I looked at his crudely wired-up screwdriver battery mechanism, then back at the dark sky and exclaimed, "Quick, make it go back!"
Another story I have is about a user that always had way too many windows applications open for the computer they had to use. Dozens and dozens of applications and windows open at the same time can slow down a system substantially. But, apparently they were a super-user, and needed lots of windows open. They complained about how slow their computer was, and I could hear them down the hall of our offices maniacally clicking the mouse , as though the more they clicked the more the computer would speed up. So, one day, in frustration, I told them to pick up their mouse and shake it to get the computer to work faster. They did it, and it worked. For weeks I would hear the little mouse being shook violently. Of course, in reality, shaking the mouse did nothing other than giving them something to do for a second, or ten, as the computer caught up. The one thing did not result in the other. I was just counting on the logical tendency of humans to see one thing happen and then another, and then think the first thing caused the second thing. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Conclusion
All this to say that it is possible that even bad piggy news informs more people about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. In addition, maybe we should also be skeptical of skeptical skeptics who may be quietly investing in Bitcoin, and then using their influence to start a bad piggy argument, just to get themselves and Bitcoin higher up in the news cycle. Perhaps, I am being too skeptical.
What are your thoughts?