FEMI TAIWO ON MONDAY: Our Struggle with Discussing Luck

Michael Oluwafemi Taiwo, Ph.D

This is the third – and final – piece of a series. You can read the first piece here; and the second piece here. We have some ground to cover so let’s jump straight in.

Most of us were raised in a Western philosophy of self-determinism which teaches that we choose our destiny. Self-determinism says that no matter what happen to us, our lives would be dictated by what we allow to happen in us. That whatever we decide to do within the space between stimulus and response determines our growth and happiness; determines our success.

William Ernest Henley incarnated this pure strain of Western thought with his Invictus poem published in 1888. In its last stanza; he famously declared, “It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishment the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”

This is Western philosophy at its best. It is a me philosophy. I am the center of the universe. I – and only I – determine whatever results I have. Give me all the credit when I succeed and blame me when I fail because I run things. I don’t care what life dishes me, it doesn’t matter anyway, what counts is how I respond to it. My response determines my success.

To be sure, I castigate not this classic Western belief. It is a philosophy that has given us modern civilization as we know it (starting from the Renaissance period). Rationalization and scientific inquiry, the twin thinking modes that are pushing technological boundaries beyond what our ancestors could ever dream, are made possible because people believe they determine life’s outcomes.

I agree with Apple’s 1997 commercial, “those crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.” We love this school of thought because of our desire for control. “A sense of personal control is integral to our self-concept and sense of self-esteem” observes Leonard Mlodinow, author of the bestseller, The Drunkard’s Walk. It is pointless to argue against the doctrine of self-responsibility. So I understand both the personal and public utility of the self-centeredness characteristic of this Western mindset.

The problem I have with it is that, more often than not, it discards another paradigm which I call the Eastern philosophy. The ancient Babylonians believed that “If a man be lucky, there is no foretelling the possible extent of his good fortune. Pitch him into the Euphrates and like as not he will swim out with a pearl in his hand.”

Or as the wisest man who ever lived was inspired to write: “I returned and saw under the sun that—The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all. For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men are snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them.”

The first quote tells us that good luck trumps circumstances; even if you are thrown in a river as turbulent as the Euphrates, you won’t only survive but thrive just because of your good fortune (i.e. luck). The second tells us that you may be the smartest, strongest and fastest and yet come out bottom because of bad luck (time and chance).

It is a lie that you determine 100% the outcome of your life. Chance plays as much of a role in your destiny as planning and/or innate abilities. The human brain can be likened to a very advanced super-computer with dazzling abilities. And the output of any computer is based on two things: input and the processing of that input.

Let’s go back to your first computer lessons: Input + CPU = Output [CPU is Central Processing Unit; here, it means your brain or mind]. Western philosophy says that the stimulus, or Input, you receive does not matter. What matters is how awesome your CPU is. We know from experience that this is not true. Ever heard of Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO)?

Eastern philosophy teaches that your Output has been pre-destined; it depends solely on how great or how bad your Input is. This is incomplete as well. If I were a betting man, I would always put my money on the swiftest horse even though I know he may not always win the race.

The answer, the truth, resides somewhere between the spectrum bounded by these two philosophies. Any successful endeavor, be it on an individual, organizational or societal level, owes as much to luck as to careful planning. The Input I referred to earlier is outside of your control so I call it a random event, or luck. The CPU is you; you are firmly in control of that. The interactions of these two determine your success or failure in life.

I will quote Leonard Mlodinow again, and let him conclude this three-part Luck series for me because I have found no better words that succinctly capture my thoughts on this: The cord that tethers ability to success is both loose and elastic.

It is easy to believe that ideas that worked were good ideas, that plans that succeeded were well designed, and that ideas and plans that did not were ill conceived. And it is easy to make heroes out of the most successful and to glance with disdain at the least. But ability does not guarantee achievement, nor is achievement proportional to ability. And so it is important to always keep in mind the other term in the equation – the role of chance.