A quick note on probabilities, life and luck

Many people in the world can be considered optimists who can always see the good in a situation and always expect the best. Thinking optimistically, however, can have certain drawbacks. Always expecting the best can leave a person open to disappointment when a situation doesn't end well and sometimes this disappointment can be severe. People who are overly optimistic are at a higher risk, or have a greater probability, of disappointment. Optimism does have its benefits. Optimists seem to have a better demeanor, regardless of the outcomes they experience, i.e. even though a negative outcome may have occurred, they are quickly encouraged by a new scenario and the possibility of a success.

Other people in the world can be labeled pessimists. Pessimists, the opposite of optimists, always expect the a negative conclusion to any scenario, i.e. they expect the worse. The costs and benefits of pessimism are different than those of optimism. Pessimists are rarely ever disappointed with an outcome because they have already prepared themselves for disappointment, and likewise, they are pleasantly surprised when an outcome is positive. This can be seen as a benefit, because too much disappointment can even affect the supreme optimist to the point where they can become disheartened. However, the general demeanor of these people is often unpleasant, as they only expect negative outcomes. This can affect the mood of people surrounding pessimists (which itself can affect the pessimist), but also a lifetime of pessimism doesn't seem the best choice.

I propose another class of people, of which I am a member and that class is the realist. Realists are neither strictly optimistic nor strictly pessimistic, but rather are they are conditionally both. Realists play the odds (probabilities), and depending on the most likely outcome of that "game" they will be either optimistic or pessimistic. I am a big fan of game theory (perhaps best known by "A Beautiful Mind" based on the story of a game theorist named Nash), so life seems like a series of games, where my best choice in a game is influenced by the other players in the game. Simply, my best choice is influenced by whatever is happening around my choice. Therefore, before I become optimistic or pessimistic, I "predict" what the probability of me winning is, and if the probability of a success is high, I would be optimistic, but conversely, if the probability of success is low, then I would be pessimistic.

With this in mind, I want to consider life and luck for a few lines. First, I assume that we agree there is an element of "luck" in life. Luck can be defined where a success (or failure) was unlikely, but nevertheless occurred rather than the other outcome. For example, if I was drawing a random card from a normal deck of cards and I said, “I am going to draw a queen of hearts" and I did, then I would consider that luck. The probability was roughly .02 (1/52), but that outcome was achieved by "luck."

As an aside, if someone were very deterministic in their mindset, then they might say that luck doesn't exist, because everything occurs by "divine appointment." I understand this is more of a theological argument (that I don't want to delve into), but quickly this is the idea that a higher power (deity most often) as already decided our future, and as such there can be no surprises, and all probabilities are equal to 1 or 0 because they either will or will not occur. I would argue there is still luck in a human life because we have no knowledge of the future, and as such, we can only assign probabilities to outcomes, and therefore, my definition of luck is valid.

Now, I would think that luck in life is distributed randomly, but I am not sure that is the case. The old saying is that "When it rains, it pours," and this is an interesting adage because it suggests that bad luck might accompany more bad luck. Therefore, is luck independent? Well athletes go through patches of "good form" or "bad form", and usually they stay in that form for a few games (or some duration of time) , and then finally they break their form. If this is the case, do individuals have some effect on luck? Another saying that is applicable is that "Fortune favors the bold," and this statement has some significance to my discussion. Fortune, which can be dubbed good luck, favors those who try. Likewise, Wayne Gretzky was credited with saying that "You miss every shot you don't take," and that is correct also. To have good luck, one must attempt a decision, or "play a game." This might ultimately favor those who slightly favor optimism, but luck by definition is usually a losing cause, so the best approach is still be a conditional optimist. For me, the ultimate driver of a decision is, what is the benefit for a win multiplied by the probability of winning versus the cost of losing multiplied by the probability of losing? If the benefit is greater, then take the chance, and likewise if the cost is greater, it may be best to "live to fight another day."

I wanted to end this post by quoting some lines from the Grateful Dead's Terrapin Station, but I think a post soon to come may analyze that song line by line and look at its significance. I hope I haven't left this post unresolved, but then again, many things in life remain unresolved... and I bid you goodnight! (Grateful Dead humor if you aren't familiar.)

On the bravery of winners

I want to consider a topic that everyone likes as my first steps into blogging, and that topic is winning. I want to first draw on a phrase in George C. Scott's opening speech in the movie Patton. He said, "Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time.... Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

Albeit that this was a script written by a writer for the pleasure of an audience, I feel this sentiment is echoed, but not only by Americans, but by people in general. Winning is the end goal, and is an end in itself. Often times people will justify any means necessary to win, but for just a few moments, let's consider winners.

First I want to draw on some observations from present time, and what is better than March Madness and the final few fixtures of the Premiere League in England. Winning is the only acceptable outcome. Take for example Chelsea in English football. Their manager last year led them to second in the Premiere League Table and was a penalty kick away from winning the UEFA Champions League crown, but ended second to Manchester United. His fate, fired. His success was not winning; it was being the best loser. University of Kentucky basketball is something I am intimately acquainted with, and it is the same situation. Billy Gillespie inherited a UK basketball team that was below what has become a high standard for their men's basketball program. Through his tenure, he has arguably raised the level of talent at UK, and given a few more years will most likely result in a high quality basketball team, but his departure may be already in the cards because he has failed to win. Sir Alex Ferguson of Manchester United has commented about the impatience of people today who demand success at the drop of a hat, but the greatest plight of winners is the expectation that once you are the best, you must stay the best.

This is where I can finally formulate my opinion on the bravery of winners. I don't want to be boastful, but I have staked my life at being the best and being a winner. Up until I was in the third grade, I cried every time I lost. I can remember long division races in third grade math, and I was a juggernaut. One day I lost, and my opponents reply was, "I finally did it, I defeated the brain..."

Though insignificant as that may seem, I was crushed. My level of excellence was tarnished by one faltering moment. Why was it such a big deal to me to lose? I think it is because I am a coward. I am afraid of losing, afraid of not being a winner. As a result, I am a slave to my own mind. Everything I do, basketball to class work to video games, I have to succeed and win. If I fail, then I continue trying until I get better, until I become a winner. Some people see this as bravery. For the sake of argument, consider a hypothetical example. An athlete loses the 100m dash, and vows to win it the next year, so for one year he is consumed by his desire to win. He trains, sweats, and bleeds to achieve his goal, and he wins. So now what must he do? If he is a true winner, then he must win again and defend his crown, so he trains again for a year, just as hard. Why did he train again? I feel, at least in my personal situations, he continues to train because he fears losing. He fears that losing makes him less desirable. This is the cowardice associated with winning. A real example now. Online video games often have rankings associated with them. Once I have achieved a certain rank I often want to stop playing because I fear losing that rank. I am a slave to winning, and must continue to do it to feel acceptable.

On a closely related note this is why I am not a quitter either. Quitting equates to losing, and winners despise losing. As a result, again I am a slave to winning. I find myself in impossible situations, but yet I can't quit, because quitting is losing, and I can't tolerate losing. What is there for me to do? I am stuck in a positive feedback loop that continues to push me in a winning direction, which may not seem bad to many people, but the stress that accompanies winning is immense. More is constantly required of winners until the finally "fall from grace" and disappear, making way for a new winner to take their place. I suppose I have come full circle now, and as such I would like to end with the closing quote from the movie Patton, and I will leave it for anyone to dwell upon the ultimate fate of all winners.

"For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeters, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting."

-DoE