Engineering Luck
Level 3: Master of Mundane
Future Guardian,
Ever hear about those people that seem to always be on the right side of luck? Everything they do just seems to work, as if they've been blessed by Lady Luck herself.
What if there was a process to engineer luck?
Well, there is.
What we call “engineering luck” requires a base knowledge of other core principles. You will notice that the roadmap1 is designed to provide the base knowledge necessary - the more advanced concepts, like this one, will refer to previous articles in case you need a refresher.
Now…engineering luck …
Remember the Adaptive Dilemma2, there are no certainties or absolutes, but we can engineer the odds in our favor.
Engineering Luck
Can we engineer a higher probability of good luck? Yes. Part of the puzzle is perspective, the other is receptivity and engineering upside by strategically removing downside. Doing this repeatedly, over long periods of time, tilts the odds of favorable outcomes in your favor.
Again, we are always talking about probabilities and risk, not certainties and absolutes. We would love to speak in absolutes but alas, our crystal ball is broken, so we operate in probabilities. First, review the foundations or underpinning of engineering luck:
Underpinnings Of Engineering Luck
Review the underpinning articles before moving on. They are linked in the footnotes.
What Are The Chances?!
Did you know Evelyn Adams won the New York lottery twice in her lifetime?
What are the chances!?
Technically they are 17 trillion to 1.
Nothing to learn from this other than some people get really lucky, right?
Wrong.
Fortunately, two Harvard statisticians, Percy Diaconis and Frederick Mosteller, showed that a double win in the lottery is not a particularly improbable event.
The odds are 30 to 1.
Same scenario, very different odds.
So what gives?
Here’s how it works out:
The odds of someone, somewhere, winning two lotteries— given the millions of people entering lotteries every day—are only 30 to 1. That’s actually pretty probable.
After that person wins, the improbability skyrocket because the details are backfilled, making it seem significantly less probably than what it is.
In other words, if you guessed someone, somewhere would win the lottery twice in their lifetime you would have 30 to 1 chance of being right. If you guessed it would be Evelyn Adams, you’d have much lower odds; a 17 trillion to 1 chance of being right.
The more detailed and dogmatic, the lower the probability of things working out.
Ever been on vacation and run into someone you wouldn’t have expected to run into there? Probably, that shit happens all the time.
Running into someone somewhere you don’t expect them to see them is inevitable - it’s a near certainty that it happens multiple times in your life.
If you had to guess exactly who you would run into, when it would happen and where, the odds would decrease exponentially. It’s nearly impossible.
The lesson?
If you want to get “that lucky” someday - the key is to be as flexible as possible as to what it will look like - and to stay receptive to the world around you.
And, of course, to stay in the game long enough for the odds to play out. The longer you are alive, the more “coincidences” occur.
The more dogmatic and rigid the expectation, the more detailed and the shorter the timeline… the lower the probability of stumbling upon “good luck”.
If you decide ahead of time exactly how you want to get lucky, exactly how it has to happen and decide that it has to happen soon - you’ve driven down the probability of good luck, significantly.
To engineer better luck, be less dogmatic, more receptive and expand the timeline.
There Are Two Undefeated Players In History
Time: It has always passed.
Randomness: It is always present.
The More Detailed The Plan, The Higher The Probability of Bad Luck
Another one that feels counterintuitive, at first.
But think about it.
Has ANYTHING happened in the last two years that revealed something you couldn’t have known or expected two years ago?
If so, the five year plan you made two years ago should be irrelevant.
To follow it would be choosing to following a plan with outdated information. The more detailed the plan, the less room for adjustment. The more diligently you follow the outdated plan, the less receptive you are to evidence of more efficient paths forward.
That’s a problem because there will always be randomness.
The only scenario a detailed, rigid plan makes sense is the one which you believe you know everything there is to possibly know - and nothing will ever change.
“Bad Luck” is the most probable outcome of a dogmatic orientation.
Solvable Problem™ As A Base
Having a reasonable, relevant and accurate Solvable Problem™ is going to be the most important part in engineering luck. It will help to inform us of the decisions we should or should not make to get us closer to what we have decided is important to us.
If you don't know what you want to achieve that will make you happy... How will you know when you get "lucky"?
One of the components of the Solvable Problem™ is time. Are you okay with a longer time preference? This doesn't necessarily mean it'll take longer, it just takes the pressure off from having to push on the gas all the time and taking more risk.
Seeing up your voluble problem with an appropriate timeframe opens up endless possibilities for “good luck” - if you are receptive to it.
Using Solvable Problem™ As A Base And CCA Principle To Engineer Luck
The CCA program7 teaches the operating system to get from where you’re at to where you want to be with the…
Least amount of effort.
Least amount of risk.
Greatest number of options.
Compound effect (in both directions).
This is what can lead to "good luck". After you've outlined your Solvable Problem™ (your destination) you would want to choose the path of least amount of effort, risk, and have the most amount of options.
Most people do the opposite.
Being dogmatic, they decide ahead of time the only acceptable path and outcome - they hav limited their options to one. Because they have predetermined the only option, they miss more efficient paths forward, which means they are doing more work than necessary to get the outcome they want. Limited options, with necessary effort carries more risk than many of the alternatives they fail to recognize.
Or…
Because their timeline is so short, they limit the options available to them - options the are inherently high risk.
You get it. The highest probability of “stumbling” upon “good luck” is:
As much effort is necessary…but no more than that
As much risk as necessary…but no more than that
As many options, paths forward or ways to win as possible.
Key Word In The Champion's Vocabulary
Even people that understand, conceptually, how to engineer luck will struggle. Why? A bias toward positive action. It looks like a version of this:
"I need to do more with my time and feel productive."
As our friend and cornerman Dr. Jeff Spencer8 says
“The key word in the Champions vocabulary is restraint”
Champions don't do things for the sake of just doing more.
Remember:
Least amount of effort, least amount of effort, greatest number of options combined with receptivity and restraint = highest probability of staying on the right side of luck.
Free articles are sent every Monday. Upgrade to paid to get Friday high-level paid posts and Guardian Academy Bonuses and Workshops.
6WU- Wisdom Comes From Multiple Perspectives
Share your take aways in six words in the thread below, then read through what others have wrote and see what wisdom you can takeaway from their thoughts.
https://twitter.com/TheGuardianAcad/status/1611784735650357249?s=20&t=-Az7B6v-DgEhcqsdIV2fTw
Watch: Youtube
Listen: Apple Podcasts | Spotify