“Go in a pope, come out a cardinal.â€
The selection of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, who did not appear on various preconclave lists of likely popes, seemed to confirm that old line about papal selection. “The chances of being elected pope decreases in proportion to the number of times he is described papabile in the press,†George Weigel, a Vatican expert, told CNN in 2005. Mr Weigel refers to the pattern as the Pignedoli Principle, after Cardinal Sergio Pignedoli, a much-discussed candidate who was not chosen as pope in 1978.
The Pignedolis of 2013 were Cardinal Angelo Scola, of Italy; Cardinal Odilo Pedro Scherer, of Brazil; and Cardinal Peter Turkson, of Ghana, the favorites of oddsmakers and some experts. In the wake of the selection of Cardinal Bergoglio - Pope Francis - you can expect to hear more about “Go in a pope, come out a crdinal.â€
But is it actually a useful guide to conclaves Probably not.
After all, Francis’ predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, was widely seen as a favorite or even the favorite heading into the last conclave, in 2005. Here is more from that CNN article in 2005, before Benedict’s election: “Weigel claims that with the exception of Pope Pius XII in 1939 and Pope Paul VI in 1963, ‘everyone else was a surprise, at least as measured by public speculation prior to the conclave.’ â€
Including 1939, the Vatican has held seven conclaves in the past 75 years. In three of them (1939, 1963 and 2005), the selection was one of the apparent favorites. In four of them (1958, both conclaves in 1978 and now 2013), the selection was a surprise. That hardly seems a strong enough pattern to deem predictive. Sometimes, the public discussion of the contenders reflects the cardinals’ actual preferences - or may shape those preferences. And sometimes the public discus! sion is either off base or may in fact push the cardinals away from a favorite.
The fact that “Go in a pope, come out a cardinal†has nonetheless become a cliché is a good reminder of how easily we are tricked by small sample sizes. It is also an example of what psychologists call confirmation bias, in which we overweight evidence that fits our pre-existing beliefs and ignore evidence that does not. (In his look at the internal polls of the 2012 election, Nate Silver discusses the issues in more detail.)
After a blackjack table gives gamblers a few bad hands, they decide it is unlucky. After Barry Bonds has a few bad postseasons, fans decide he is a choker who can’t hit in October - and then he reels off one of the great postseasons in baseball history. After housing prices rise rapidly for a few years, home buyers, and even top government officials, decide that ousing prices can never fall.
These rules of thumb make for enjoyable conversation. But they are often not reliable guides to the future, in Rome and elsewhere.
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
