"It does not pay a prophet to be too specific"

Throughout history, those who claim to foresee the future, whether as prophets, analysts, or visionaries, often choose their words carefully, preferring generalities over precise details. Specific predictions are verifiable; they either come true or they do not, and the consequences of being wrong can be significant. When one gives clear predictions, naming dates, places, or exact events, they open themselves to scrutiny and, typically, the likelihood that reality will depart from their forecast in ways both small and large.

By being vague or ambiguous, a prophet preserves an aura of credibility. General statements such as "challenging times are ahead" or "unexpected leaders will rise" are far more flexible and can be interpreted to fit a broad range of future outcomes. In contrast, saying there will be an earthquake in a specific city on a certain day risks refutation if the event does not occur. The wisdom behind the caution stems from human memory and confirmation bias; people tend to remember and celebrate the instances where predictions seem accurate, while vague warnings are easily attached to unexpected events and missteps are conveniently forgotten.

Furthermore, specificity in prophecy can inadvertently create unrest, panic, or unwarranted hope. Stakeholders, whether in politics, markets, or communities, may act on the pointed predictions, and if these prove false, trust is eroded not only in the one making the predictions but in the process of prediction itself.

Uncertainty is a constant in human affairs, and admitting this through careful, non-committal predictions has been a hallmark of those who wish to maintain authority or influence. At its core, the phrase encapsulates an understanding of human psychology and the inherent unpredictability of events. Ambiguity preserves the prophet’s credibility and protections, while specificity invites risk and scrutiny, a classic lesson for anyone who seeks to guide others by forecasting the unknown.