Kid Rock, Trump and Prior Probabilities
I can’t find the original quote, but someone I care about posted this^. The quote attributed to Kid Rock says:
"If you believe that a man who spent 77 years without a felony, suddenly turned around and committed 91 felonies, you're brainwashed.”
EDIT: a friend of mine commented a fire response that needs to be included. He said: “The prior innocence argument falls apart really fast. It implies that most first time offenders are innocent. Mind boggling.” Sit with that.
If I had to offer a highly charitable reconstruction, I’d say the argument goes like this: if Trump’s criminal track record has been spotless for the vast majority of his life (70+ years without a felony), it is highly unlikely that he committed any felonies in recent times. Trump’s criminal track record has been spotless for the vast majority of his life (70+ years without a felony). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he committed any felonies in recent times.
Here’s why you shouldn’t be persuaded by this argument.
First, there are plenty of examples of spotless records that become soiled once the person in question comes into power or gets embroiled in political issues. As far as I know, Richard Nixon had a spotless criminal record before the 1972 Watergate scandal. In general, there’s nothing terribly shocking about ordinary people falling into criminal transgressions once they begin to swim in the fraught waters of politics.1
Of course, none of this implies that Trump is indeed guilty. The point is simply that Kid Rock’s rock reliance on Trump’s allegedly shiny track record is not an airtight way of defending him (it certainly can’t show that people are “brainwashed” for thinking he committed a felony).
Second, to figure out whether Trump committed various felonies we need to do what Kid Rock does not do: look at the total evidence. Suppose I’m wondering whether it rained today. A friend informs me that it has not rained for the last 70 days. On the basis of that information alone, it is unlikely that it has rained today. But suppose I gain new evidence. I look out the window and see rain. With that evidence in hand, I come to believe it is raining outside. Suppose my friend objects to my new belief: “it hasn’t rained in the past 70 days! If you believe it has suddenly turned around and rained, you’re crazy.” But the belief remains “crazy” (i.e., unbeleivable) only if I discount the total relevant evidence. Suppose I invite my friend to take a look for himself. If he insists that, “it hasn’t rained in the past 70 days,” he is guilty of evading relevant evidence. That’s no way to (rationally) settle the issue.
The application to Kid Rock’s argument is straightforward. While it may be true that relative to some portion of our evidence, it is highly unlikely that Trump committed any felonies, relative to the total evidence, it may be highly likely that Trump committed felonies.2
Finally, and related to the second problem, Kid Rock’s argument commits what I will call the “prior probability fallacy.” Prior probabilities are probabilities determined by general background information. For example, if you live in the desert, the chance of rain is low. Suppose it only rains 2% of the time in the desert (roughly 7 days out of the year). This general statistical data gives us the “prior probability” for the occurrence of rain at any future point. Next Tuesday, for example, the prior probability of rain is 2%––exceedingly low.
Imagine next Tuesday arrives and your friend comes inside soaking wet with an umbrella in hand. You hear lightning and pattering on the roof. Relative to this evidence, the probability that it is raining is high. You may even be justified in believing that it is raining outside. However, kid Rock objects: “the chance of rain is exceedingly small…just 2%; in fact, it hasn’t even rained in the past 100 days.” It is easy to see that Kid Rock is resting his entire case on the prior probability of rain, rather than on the new probability determined by looking at the specific evidence for rain. By fixating on the prior probability, we can understand why someone would be skeptical that it is raining outside. Yet, it would be irrational to fixate on the prior probability and not the new probability based on the specific evidence just acquired.
Appealing to Trump’s historical track record may tell us what the prior probability is of him committing a felony. By resting the case there, however, Kid Rock invites us to commit the prior probability fallacy. In the end, whether we should believe Trump is guilty of any felonies depends on the specific evidence for thinking so. His track record simply can’t settle the issue. In short, just dig into the specific evidence.
Besides, Trump’s track record isn’t so spotless. He has been charged with fraud on multiple occasions.
Here’s some of that relevant evidence to consider: in response to a trail of invoices and checks, as well as testimony by Michael Cohen (Trump’s former attorney) that he had been reimbursed by Trump for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, a jury of Trump’s peers found him guilty of 34 accounts of falsifying business records. For a more detailed and nuanced look at the case, see here.