Last time I introduced you to the theme of variables-numbers, talking about how to apply this approach to money to free yourself from the emotionality surrounding it. Today I want to go into detail about this analytical method, starting from something that touches us all closely: luck and bad luck.
For too many years I was a victim of these two words. I managed them at a level that I now consider completely wrong: I made them mine to the point of almost feeling them dominate, despite the metacognitive part of me, the one that reasons, not agreeing at all.
Cultural biases and the world around us often lead us to these extremes. I bet many of you will recognize yourselves in this dynamic, and even those who consider themselves less emotional will recognize the power that words like “luck” and “bad luck” have on our perceptions.
The shift in perspective
Recently I radically changed my approach. Luck and bad luck, as absolute concepts, do not exist. They are variables, numbers, percentages, because that’s what they are in reality. Simply put, the complexity of the world and relationships doesn’t allow us to know every variable and every percentage at play.
Mathematicians know this well: they tell you “I can calculate the narrow radius where the sprinkler drop will fall, but not the exact position.” Physicists too, if we think of quantum mechanics, know this limit perfectly well.
I accept luck and bad luck as philosophical concepts, another subject I love, and I accept them as words contextualized in human discourse, but without suffering their emotional weight, as the Stoics would say.
The practical analysis
Let’s think about when we say “Damn, it always happens to me, what bad luck!” and let’s analyze in detail.
First focal point: Did the event that happened objectively have more than a 50% chance of occurring? We often discover that the percentages were actually low, but even when the percentage is high there’s a crucial aspect to consider.
Second focal point: Even a 95% probability means that in 5% of cases the event doesn’t occur. It’s pure mathematics.
Someone might object: “Yes, but that damn 5% always happens to me.”
I’ll stop you right there and shift attention to the concept I care about most: “always to me”. Are you really sure of this statement? What concrete proof do you have?
The reality of numbers
If you generate ten situations of various kinds and one works while the other nine don’t, are you really sure it’s bad luck? If you act on ten situations with different probability rates, you’re not unlucky: it’s normal for the majority to have a negative outcome.
When we act on multiple planes simultaneously, we tend to see only the failures and misinterpret even the most obvious events when they go wrong. It’s in human nature, any psychologist can explain it to you much better than me.
We see that 5% that went wrong, but we don’t recognize that we activated dozens of events or situations simultaneously. Many worked, and maybe even some of those with only a 5% chance came through in our favor.
As you notice, it’s always about variables and numbers. If we could know them all, we’d probably manage them better, but as mathematicians and physicists say, today it’s not plausible. And, as philosophy would add: “Maybe that’s okay.”
Analytical approach vs. feelings
Are you wondering if this is a mere analytical approach that makes feelings sterile?
For me, absolutely not. When I face a situation observing and analyzing it this way, I don’t feel bad. I can be sad about it, but in the positive sense of “I tried, it didn’t work out”, not in the destructive sense of “It always happens to me”.
Feelings can remain present and be healthier if we modify our approach even to common but complex concepts like luck and bad luck.
Think about it: I might not have said only nonsense.