The self-fulfilled prophecy is a conforming confirmation. Scientists call it confirmation bias, and logicians refer to it as tautology.
Remember that scientists shun philosophy as a bias. While science is empirical and experimental, philosophy tends to shape hypotheses to pick the evidence that supports it, or conforms to it. While a philosophy may argue confirmation of the evidence it is really induced by the method employed to support what it predicts.
At the same time, keep in mind, engineers are known to be scientists. Yet engineers tend to shape things to fit their hypotheses. The evidence of success is induced by the method employed to support what it predicts.
The question then becomes what the observer intends to measure or yield by the method, establishing the propriety–the ownership, the identity, or the “intendency”–of the attributive value.
Remember that with validation of the evidence, or confirmation bias, there is, in fact, a confirmation. It confirms the bias–the intendency–supported by the evidence.
Capitalists build out a conforming confirmation. Organization theory refers to this as an “organizational technology.”
Networking the externalities and forming “natural monopolies” engineers the risk to conform to the hypothesis. This is simply management by objective, and it poses a liability. Conforming confirmation expresses having intended the risk said to be ontologically derived, having been deliberately structured (engineered) to determine the utility (the useful value) of the risk.
Mitigating the liability is, essentially, arguing about it. An argument is built out (structured) to justify the application of the risk and the value the method yields (engineered) so that the means justifies the ends (with apparent confirmation), appearing as the attribute of a Descriptive Random Utility.
In the hands of corporate lawyers, DRU is a feat of rhetorical funambulism. Its objective value is twisted into pretzel-logic psychobabble, conforming to the god-like delusions of the “job creators” who want to show power by determining the fate of others without the risk of retribution, which is an exercise in futility.
Building out the argument organizes the psychopathy of the risk. We are naturally risk averse by being risk prone because nature demands it. Being TBTF conforms to the natural conditions that select (confirm) the means to ends, the corporate body contends. Resistance is futile. Nonconformity does not confirm, the conservative argues. “It” is delusional, pathological, sick!
Building out the structural bias (cycling between liberal and conservative identities, for example) is by swapping the derivative value. Instead of the evidence supporting the truth, the truth exists to support (construct) the evidence. Resistance is, well, futilitarian (“it” is binomially determined: reality is either confirmed or not, strictly constructed).
(It’s like the story of the pharaohs who demonstrated their god-like power by throwing a piece of paper into the Nile commanding it to flood.)
By turning the hypothesis into the evidence (conforming to the confirmation), capitalism effectively apologizes for the intending harm with a descriptive random utility. DRU is operationalized to form a temporal fallacy argued to be paradoxical (a philosophical puzzle to be solved by winning the argument, loosely constructed). Utilizing the temporal fallacy, the risk being now (fully assumed in priority) is fornever.
Instead of the question yielding to the answer, the answer yields to the question, forming a dysfunctional psychopathy, existing without proper attribution.
Being confirmed or not (binomially determined) the values (“to be or not to be”) are forever changing but conserved (determined) in priority. So, if “We” want to change the world, the mission is impossible, isn’t it?