all-in

collective myopia 

the post-debate discourse implies that those close to biden couldn't have possibly expected that the outcome of the debate would be the party and the base's cry for candidate swap. yet they somehow initiated a debate 2 months ahead of the debate schedule. 

as individuals we do ok with theory of mind but as groups we have such a hard time thinking the outcome might've been expected to those that could have influenced it prior to it happening.

translation for this channel:
- they knew biden would lose and they'd have to switch him out for a proper chance. 
- they couldn't just swap him out: either because he wouldn't let go, or the voter base would be confused. 
- they did a debate 2 months early to get the public to cry for his swapping.

i once had a boss who wanted to fire someone but didnt have the authority to. so she promoted them into a role she knew they weren't capable of succeeding in. predictably, they underperformed and were let go a few months later

no one could figure out why she'd promote someone she didn't think was good at their job. then we realized and were like ohhhhh damn that bitch is cold 

a good question to ask when otherwise smart people do seemingly dumb things: what would have to be true in order for that to make sense?

"what would have to be true in order for that to make sense?" this slaps. 
your example is more 5d. the biden one is way more obvious. like oh, you knew he'd get manhandled. and then he did. but then people who actually see the guy everyday couldn't have thought that. and they couldn't have imagined what the backlash would be?