Recently I heard yet another perspective on luck. I had previously heard and posted two other perspectives under the Sound Advice section at Taosophy.com–(all three are now posted as a weekly featured post) but this third perspective put a grand perspective on the luck phenomenon and the strange relationship people have with it–particularly, the successful vs. the not so successful.
The first perspective was a segment from The Atheist Experience podcastthat focused on buying-in to luck as a superstitious practice–where for example, people attribute favorable occurrences to a particular item such as a lucky pair of socks that helped them bowl a perfect game and how it robs them of the merit of having actually had the skill to perform the feat. The superstitious reliance gets wrongly attributed to an item not actual ability.
The second perspective was from an episode of The Adam Carolla Show Podcast that was actually spurred by an article written by Richard H. Frank, ironically, the author of an article of the third perspective that in Adam’s opinion,seemed to give a little much sway to luck in the achievements of successful people. Adam has touched on the subject of luck in previous podcasts, but his ire was laser-focused on the disservice it does to people who rely too much on luck, whether it be as an excuse for why one isn’t successful and how those same people attribute too much of others’ success to luck.
The third perspective, from the aforementioned Richard H. Frank, Goldwin Smith Professor of Economics at Cornell University and author of Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, put the concept of luck into what I think is its proper perspective by explaining how people in general are often reluctant to acknowledge what role luck plays in their lives and how successful people can vacillate between giving luck too much credit to appear humble and on the other hand, giving luck no credit in order to avoid appearing that their success had one-hundred percent to do with their merit and skill.
I think the proper way to look at the phenomenon of luck is to best stated in a quote from Elmer Leterman:
“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”
I sum it up this way:
Luck is not some nebulous state or characteristic bestowed randomly upon certain special souls.
A better way of characterizing the phenomenon that we call “luck” is–in its “good” state: a preparation of ONESELF that makes one susceptible to probable favorable opportunities.
In its “bad” state, where one may have not explicitly, or at least not with express intent, become subject of some unfavorable event, has nevertheless, found themselves in, or been put in a situation that has made them susceptible to an unfavorable circumstance.
You CAN think of luck as a four leaf clover–where the clover is NOT a magical item that imbues the possessor with favor, but as simply ANY DESIRED THING, that one must not only make oneself proximal to physically, but to have prepared oneself for taking advantage of the opportunity to possess it when it presents itself.
So, was it luck when I walked into a Starbucks over the weekend and had the clerk tell me that the previous guest had left a five-dollar gift card to use for the next guest (me)? You could sat yes, but you could also say it was my preparation of getting out of bed a driving to Starbucks to take advantage of the opportunity that made me the beneficiary of someone else’s random act of opportunity.
But of course you would also have to say it was bad luck when the clerk forgot to cue my drink for preparation by the barista which left me to watch as three people who came in after me, leave before me with their coffee.
Forgive and forget? Nah. Metabolize, January 22, 2010
Metabolization, in its most basic explanation, is the body’s process of converting the food we ingest to the various building blocks our bodies need to keep it going. It’s also the process whereby the body discards that which it doesn’t need.
How convenient would it be if there was a similar process for dealing with the various emotions we experience? To not let an emotion like anger affect us as if it was some poisonous toxin that gets absorbed at a molecular level, conversely, breaking us down from the inside. What if we dealt with anger? Not with the less practical methods of forgetting or forgiving, but as psychotherapist Will Meyerhofer suggests in his ‘The People’s Therapist’ blog, to not fear anger, but contain it – “feel it, study it, learn from it – but not succumb to the temptation to go unconscious and act on it”. Perhaps more of us would be less affected by physical manifestations stress and depression if we dealt with the emotions we are sometimes forced upon us by external factors.
Of course, one could aspire to a pre-emptive approach to controlling one’s emotions, as the David Banner character from the ‘Avengers’ franchise eventually learns to, but perhaps that’s a bridge too far for us mere mortals…for now.
The mass unconscious discharge of aggression is commonly known as war. At some level, it feels good too. And leads to untold horrors.
That’s why metabolizing anger is a better strategy. You put the anger into words, and start to understand it. This process converts raw emotion into communication.
The poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, wrote, “Let life happen to you. Believe me: life is in the right, always.”
Hearing of Prince’s sudden passing on the afternoon April 21st 2016, hit me hard. That’s saying a lot for one who has handled the death of family members with measured stoicism. Below is my response to a response to a Huffington Post article about why we feel deep loss when someone we never even met passes away.
Prince: (June 7, 1958 – April 21, 2016)
I took up playing guitar after I saw Purple Rain–LIFE CHANGING EVENT for me. Not because it was a good movie, or I was already a fan, but because I saw myself in a mysterious dude with faults and sensibilities I shared and who’s first language was music. I connected immediately.
Being one who tends to be stoic, I think tend to think-ahead to events like this–what it will feel like and how I will react. On another level this feels like when Jim Henson died suddenly–he was my second teacher ever, after Mom, but I literally feel like I lost a big brother and a teacher and no amount of preparation softens the blow for this kind of unexpected loss.
Just goes to show that we are more than just our physical connections. I Never got closer than thirty yards to this amazing cat, nevertheless, I am deeply affected. I feel like I lost a family member today.
As to human morality, if it could be said that the bible is its gleaning source, are we not at some point, cast-out as sufficiently tutored adolescents free to practice, free of the doting hoverage of a distrustful God-parent?
Are we not, as evidenced in the whole of creatures in our midst, capable of sustaining ourselves, post moral-gestation, even if occasional failure be an inherent ever-present possibility; the sharp tip of the arrow for whose lesson we are to annex into our moral quiver?
To be perpetually reliant upon the guidance of an omnipresent omniscient overbearing overlord is to be apart from the rest of what is natural.
And if we are the so-called higher animal, favorite-sibling of such a doter, does that not still put us at odds with the rest of creation?
Q. When do the benefits of scientific discovery and inquiry supersede cultural tradition?
Q. When does the possibility of the discovery of something that could prove to be beneficial to the majority lose out to the cultural or pseudo religious practices of the minority and the federal law that protects it.
As it happens, this particular find turned out to be closer to what the Native Americans thought it to be. A fact that could only have been verified via scientific scrutiny. But what if the initial indications had proved true–that it wasn’t even likely Native American? You have to leave the possibilities of what even greater possibilities the relic could have held, to the experts, but surely even a layman can see the benefit of at least categorizing it and confirming it as the 8500 year old specimen it was, is of greater import than blind reverence to sacred tradition and federal law, for that matter.
Also, are certain cultures given an inordinate amount of reverence as an overreactive response to past atrocities committed against them? I can think of one that clearly isn’t.
Native American culture seems to gets a “mystical pass” for this reason, but also rightfully so because a lot of their cultural practices have at their core a respect and reverence for nature. Sure the practicality at the base of their way of life can be easily evidenced in things like reverence for animals and sustainable practices regarding the land that supports them, but one has to admit that there is a certain “woo” factor involved with their ceremonies and traditions. For instance, one can be pretty sure no rain dance has ever actually caused the flow of precipitous torrents of h20 from the sky. It’s nothing more than a signaling. A prayer.
With all the recent debate regarding the church’s tax-exempt status, is it just a matter of time before scientific inquiry, tempered with respect for cultural tradition, takes priority.
Diversion of tax dollars toward inquiry that can lead to discoveries that benefit humanity as a whole, from anti-equimenical sectarian institutions whose charge is the promotion of antiquated dogma that has all but ceased looking for answers to the perplexities of the human condition, would seems to be money better spent.
Some believe that prayer works. There are actually two factions of this belief. On the one side you have theists who believe that they can influence an unseen deity and petition to enlist its support on their behalf or the bahalf of someone or something. Why one would have to coerce an all-knowing, all-loving god to intervene on their behalf and go against “it’s plan” is a blog post all its own. Until that’s written, this one from the asundayafternoon.com blog will have to do.
“Just like tape adheres one thing to another, you can adhere or tape prayer to another person. The Bible calls it ‘standing in the gap’. “
But on the other side you have those that have measured some negligible, if not consistent, effect where prayer has been invoked in one’s own behalf or on the behalf of another. The underlying theory regarding the latter being the benefit of positive thinking or the Placebo Effect.
While there is yet no hard data that shows prayer as either consistently effective or consistently ineffective, there is good reason behind this unique and innate human tendency to plea to external forces to act on their behalf.
Some dismiss prayer out of hand. Mostly because the word “prayer” has an inherent association with religion, and thus, with belief. It is defined as:
“an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication.”
But this association, while understandable, begs further inspection. Some anthropologists believe that the earliest intelligent modern humans practiced a form of prayer.(1) Which seems to make prayer an inherently human act. When you examine the plight of the earliest modern humans, you can imagine why this behavior may have evolved. At some point, the earliest humans began to piece together the reality of their situation; that they existed in a world where they evidenced natural phenomena, which seemed to show indifference to their existence–seemingly randomly fluctuating between subjectively non-favorable acts like lightning and floods in one instance and subjectively favorable acts or complete indifference the next. Realizing a complete lack of control over and understanding of this phenomena lead them to form the assumption that there was some other force at the helm of the their world. This indifferent force being virtually unseen, sans the aforementioned evidence of its agency, left early humans with seemingly one option–to subjugate themselves to it with the hope of remediation of non-favorable phenomena and maximizing the favorable. In this we can see the beginnings of formal religion.
Even in modern times this subjugation is still very much a part of our nature. Because even though, through science, we’ve begun to understand and demystify a considerable amount of things for which the earliest humans had no answer, there remains a great deal of phenomena (some of the exact same phenomena as experienced by early humans) over which we have no control as well as things concerning the world we inhabit about which we have little or no explanation–to say nothing of the seeming vast and infinite universe. So, like our early counterparts, we still have a reason and a desire to want to minimize the bad and maximize the good. But unlike our early counterparts, through the discovery afforded by science, we have less reason (if any at all) to rely on prayer in this endeavor. Prayer has become a behavior that bookends scientific inquisition and effective action; a knee-jerk, reptilian first reaction on the one hand and a last-resort when even science falls short. But even in this lower consignment, prayer is still an act humans still feel behoved to participate in(some more readily than others). Perhaps there is a good reason for this. Being that prayer is usually an act that one resorts to in the absence of any kind of effective personal practical agency–a sort of “just because there’s nothing you can do, doesn’t mean you should just do nothing” proposition–prayer is literally, the least you can do when there’s nothing else that can be done.
This is not to minimize the act of praying, but to put its use into proper perspective. That use is as signaling. Economist Robin Hanson explains the signaling theory of human behavior as the motivation for our choices about school, shopping, medical care, and so on, (their pragmatic benefit aside) that have evolved primarily to shape other people’s perceptions of us(2). In the case of prayer, some may believe it has a pragmatic effect, but what we are really doing is signaling to others we care about them, or in the case of the aforementioned all-knowing, all-loving deity, to let him know you respect his power and enlist its use–never mind the cognitive dissonance of having to ask an all-knowing, all-loving deity to intervene in a situation.
Leaving the merits of deistic prayer for another discussion, it’s suffice to say that the effectiveness of prayer, in its most easily measurable level of effectiveness is not evident in the mere quality of the plea or quantity of participants and their level of intent, but in its reception–not by an all-knowing and seeing progenitor deity, but by the person to whom the prayers are directed. This also applies indirectly to a situation over which one is praying, but it still comes down to a sentient agent’s reception of the plea and their ability to take action in hopes of affecting the situation.
For example, when one can pray for the alleviation of hunger in a certain part of the world, we can be fairly certain that the mere act of praying alone (or “liking” on social media) has zero effect on the alleviation of that hunger, but it can, at least, be useful in several other aspects.
One aspect is the raw acknowledgement on the part of the one offering the prayer, that hunger is a problem and that actual people are suffering. The second perspective is that of the hungry. They can become aware that their plight is acknowledged and that, perhaps something will be done to alleviate their hunger–hope is a good thing in itself. The third perspective, that of the person or people so inclined to do something to alleviate the hunger, and that they will, in fact, do so. The Sally Struthers Effect, if you will. A scenario that could have likely played out thusly: Person A prays for an end to hunger. Person B is now aware there is a hunger problem. Person B visits a third person, Person C–the hungry, and campaigns on behalf of Person C in the presence of Person C, inciting a fourth party, Person D, to provide the necessary means to provide the food to give to Person C, that will alleviate their hunger. Here, one could stretch and over-simplify the course of events of this scenario as: prayer helped alleviated hunger.
Though you could easily argue that the act of prayer is wholly unnecessary in the above scenario–and you’d be right. Person B is dependent upon Person A only in the sense that this may have provided first inclination that Person C even existed. You could have easily substituted a newscast in place of the prayer in the above scenario as the thing that made Person A aware of the hunger problem. But what prayer signifies in these kinds of scenarios is a kind of quality or level of importance to the problem hunger in this scenario.
As stated above, given that prayer is usually invoked in situations in which one feels a sense of helplessness, it conveys a qualitative sense of importance of a situation and as a plea to enlist the action of those in a position to help in a given situation. So, you could argue that even if a newscast was the impetus for making someone aware of a hunger problem, mentioning within the newscast that perhaps “millions are praying for a solution to the hunger problem” human nature being what it is, affords a qualitative degree of importance and caring–This problem is “this” important and we care “this” much. If only in this, prayer is a unique tool.
But the result is not always good. Some studies have indicated increased medical complications in groups receiving prayer over those without.(2)(3) This negative aspect of prayer fits with the theory that the effectiveness of prayer (as signaling) is ultimately dependent upon how it’s received. In this study where prayer had a negative effect upon medical patients, you can argue two positions. One, that the mere fact of knowing that you are being prayed for could be taken as an indication, by the prayee, that their situation is of such dire circumstance and perhaps of such great import to a great many people, that its alleviation is insurmountable or hopeless. The other, more obvious and likely position being that the medical reality of the situation is beyond capabilities of the placebo effect and ultimately, beyond medicine’s current ability to alleviate it.
So even though the act of signaling “is as basic an endowment of man as his vision, hearing, taste and smell”–this “desire to be heard, known, and felt deeply”(4), as it manifests as prayer, it is little more than spiritual duct tape; it’s what you use when you don’t have your most effective tools at the ready.
Watching a segment of The Daily Show with John Stewart, it suddenly occurred to me that a classic persuasive tactic was being exploited. The segment featured Republican Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) attempt to nullify decades of research supporting man-made climate change, by presenting as evidence, a snowball from a recent Washington D.C. snow–freshly molded right from the Capitol steps and brought to the house floor.
The Senator’s remarks, while neither overly pedestrian nor replete with scientific data to support his claim, did site a Goddard Institute of Space Studies study that found that “there (is) only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year on record”. Now, the average person, left to their own devices to decipher and put that into perspective, might jump to the conclusion that that percentage of likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year on record, had some relevance or correlation to the validity of the ill effects of climate change research in general. Not so. It is only a qualification therein–the “if this, then not that” line of reasoning that doesn’t consider the findings that “climate change and extreme weather events are linked.”(NOAA)
Now, you’ve got to at least hope that the Senator, a man with some considerable position and degree of influence as chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee, is not jumping to the aforementioned incongruent conclusion out of ignorance, but that he is merely taking advantage of how these neat little falsely juxtaposed factoids sound to those who are, shall we say, less reasonable in their cognitive reasoning facilities–a “least reasonable man”, if you will.
I was first made aware of the principle of the “least reasonable man” in an advertising class while working on my Media Arts degree. It was described in terms of a precaution taken by-product manufacturers to protect those who might least be expected to manage reasonable or safe use of their products
Examples currently in use on products are the “Do Not Ingest”warnings listed on the silicon packets placed in product packaging to absorb moisture that might otherwise damage the product during shipping or during it’s shelf life.
The primary use of these types of warnings is likely the protection of manufacturers against litigation resulting from improper use of their products, with general public safety coming in at a close second–at least from the perspective of he most affected by “the bottom line”.
Now days, it seems warnings like these are conspicuously absent where Joe Citizen’s easy access to and voracious ingestion of punditry and partisan politics is concerned. Where “least reasonable man” is the “low-hanging fruit” waiting to be picked (read persuaded) and collected in the fruit baskets of loyal constituency, re-election and lobbyist sponsored political sway.
Enter political satire.
Political Satire has likely been around since the first politician first spoke out of the side of his neck. But recently, a new, more potent brand of satire has hit the shelves. News-satire offerings like the now defunct Colbert Report, the soon to be re-imagined The Daily Show, and long running shows like Real Time with Bill Maher have stepped in between these actors and acted as a rather efficient poop filter in the cloudy fish tank that is American politics.
Shows like these, while entertaining, do actually mange to simultaneously entertain and educate. The Daily Show “Inhofe’s Snowball” segment alone featured these general factoids and insights about our political system:
• Our legislative system is run by committees
• Each committee is headed by a chairperson
• Each chairmanship is awarded, not by merit, but overwhelmingly by seniority
• The matchings of chairmen to committees is suspect; chairpersons seem to have fundamental opposition to the very programs and agencies affected by the decisions of their committees.
For example, in the case of Sen. Inhofe(R-OK)–a denier of the science supporting man-made climate change heading a committee on Environment and Pubic Works–who’s also been known to site the Bible in his rebuttal of said science. Coincidence?
One could argue that it would be suspect for the head of a committee to be biased even in favor of their committees charge, but these polarities being what they are(you wouldn’t likely find a moderate with enough experience in the committees charge-again, not that experience is the pre-requisite), one would expect that regardless of one’s position, one could muster measured reason and set aside whatever internal bias for the sake of the greater good. But maybe that’s asking too much of a politician. Which begs the question, why do we keep electing them. Cognitive dissonance begets more cognitive dissonance, I guess.
Now granted, the first two of the above factoids are your basic government 101 fare, but the bottom two, not so much. They virtually beg you to question why and how the process works that way.
So, traditional media, having dropped the ball with it’s obsession with celebrity and other fluff, punditry and opinion, it’s newly adopted knee-jerk style of “report first, fact-check later” and the false memory of its anchorage, has as it’s counter, programs like The Daily Show to fill the void of protecting “least reasonable man” from himself and the public at large from his inability to reason independently…or at all.