Let’s face it: we human beings are entirely addicted to the simplicity of cause and effect; probably too much so for our own good.

Personally, I tend to think it’s an evolutionary hangover that began as a survival strategy — “if toothy predator, then loss of limb.” One that’s evolved over eons to provoke everything from the world’s grand cosmologies, to Bach’s recursively eloquent cantatas, to advertising’s current one-sided and ill-fated love affair with “predictive” data. 

Hang tight, I’ll get to that last in due time.

In any event, signaling right off the bat that a measure of healthy suspicion is in order, even the lawyers are seduced by “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” the legal phrase that loosely translates to “after this, because of this.” That’s ironic, since a great deal of civil liability law has to do with apportioning shades of blame in very non-black and white fact patterns.

A cupcake shop’s delivery truck driven by a drunken baker runs into a rotting utility pole, startling the escaped parakeet on top of a wire, who flies into a woman’s open window, prompting the woman inside to stagger into a defectively installed oven that instantly bursts into flame, causing a man four houses down to suffer a heart attack when he’s startled by the arriving fire engines. Who pays for his hospital stay?

Proving that three years of law school wasn’t entirely wasted, I once used a similar tort law example to create a spec radio spot that helped us win the business of a major insurance brand.  But, as usual, I digress.

The point is that we not only want the arrow to point from this-to-that with no hinky detours, but also fail to recognize that we live in a world of possibilities, not certainties.

All of which leads me to the problems with microtargeting, linear ad testing and the Country & Western song I will one day write: “We May Love the Data, But the Data Don’t Love Us.”

Enter the advocates for all things algorithmic, claiming they’ve found the glittering grail of behavior- and context-based mind-reading that promises “100% message precision, 100% media accuracy, 100% less waste.”

The Reductionist happens to think that’s also 100% bullchips, if for no other reason than people exist on a continuum of attitudes and motivations. Put in fancier language, in a probabilistic world, we use approximations to find our clearest and best path forward:

1. Using data to give us a time-sensitive snapshot of the people we want to persuade; a window into relevance.

2. Using research and testing as an aid to judgment, not a substitute. As in the back-in-the-day Levi’s ad campaign that tested at the very bottom of comparable-product rankings, and yet proved to be the successful promotion in the company’s history.

3. Using media to maximize our chances of success by giving us the biggest reach possible with the greatest number of impressions.

4. Using creative as our great “finger on the scales of fortune” to tilt things in favor of our brand, product, service, company, and clients.

I’m not saying that the straight-forward nature of cause-and-effect isn’t alluring. But I think we’re wise to follow Einstein’s guidance to “make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

Ergo propter hoc, baby.