后见之明偏误指当人们得知某一事件结果后，夸大原先对这一事件的猜测的倾向，俗语称“事后诸葛亮”。后见之明偏见的一个基本的例子是，在知道一个不可预见事件的结果后，一个人相信自己“早就知道结果会这样”。后见之明的偏见可能导致记忆失真，回忆与重建内容时产生错误的理论成果。

它可能隐藏在实验的多方面问题上，比如设计、材料、测量方法上。后见之明偏误可能导致记忆扭曲，回忆和复原时产生错误理论。据报，后见之明偏误是实验研究中分析、理解、解读结果的严重方法问题。例子还有，历史著作中对战役结果的描述、医生对临床试验的回顾和司法系统对事故责任和可预测性的判定，还有沈迷于赌博的人们。因而过度高估自己的预测能力，虽然对人类日常生活影响不大，可能只是增加了成见，但如果在法庭上的供词如果出现记忆偏差，就会影响口供的证据与判决，因而许多脑科学家专门研究此现象，以求减少生因性的影响成分。

Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it. It is a multifaceted phenomenon that can affect different stages of designs, processes, contexts, and situations. Hindsight bias may cause memory distortion, where the recollection and reconstruction of content can lead to false theoretical outcomes. It has been suggested that the effect can cause extreme methodological problems while trying to analyze, understand, and interpret results in experimental studies. A basic example of the hindsight bias is when, after viewing the outcome of a potentially unforeseeable event, a person believes he or she "knew it all along". Such examples are present in the writings of historians describing outcomes of battles, physicians recalling clinical trials, and in judicial systems trying to attribute responsibility and predictability of accidents.