Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?
Well, do ya?
I've been bothered recently by the use of "luck" to describe everything. Sooo, being the embittered (read lazy), but well-trained academic that I am, I looked up the definition of luck:
I've been bothered recently by the use of "luck" to describe everything. Sooo, being the embittered (read lazy), but well-trained academic that I am, I looked up the definition of luck:
1. The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events; fortune: They met one day out of pure luck.
2. Good fortune or prosperity; success: We wish you luck.
3. One's personal fate or lot: It was just my luck to win a trip I couldn't take.
These definitions may be Webster-sanctioned, but I ain't buyin'. The first seems to hit closest to the mark, but let's clean it up a bit, shall we? To me, luck is a deviation from events which have highest statistical mass associated with them which, further, either confers some benefit upon you or exacts some cost; for instance, let's say you walk to the grocery store every day, and one bright shining day, you happen upon $100. That's lucky. It's an even which happens infrequently if ever, and for reasons beyond your control, you experience an event contained in the outer tails of probability distribution. Yes, you could also pass by a turkey one day, or a giant wooden ship parked in the parking lot for no particular reason; we would not assign the word luck to these events unless you're a turkey or ship hunter or have a morbid fear of turkeys and or wooden ships.
Now I get irritated by lots of uses of particular words, but I'm especially irritated with this case because people keep applying it to my life stories all the frickin' time, yo. Examples (drawn from my life and other sources):
1) My cell phone was stolen, but not my wallet. Response from many: "Wow, you got really lucky!"
2) On the news, I learned that a group of construction workers happened upon an unknowingly live mortar shell (bomb). They did not die. Response from reporter: "Yes, they certainly were lucky."
3) When watching the Katrina disaster stories on tv, many victims stated how lucky they were that they only lost their dog, their old uncle, their homes.
Maybe you see where I'm headed, dear reader. The above events are statistically improbable in some way; however, the net outcome is generally unlucky if anything. Luck is being incorrectly used here to compare two statistically improbable events, one of which occurred and one which did not. Now unless you're reaching into the far past of probability, we assign probability to events before they occur. So, just because one event occurs (which was assigned a small chance of occurence a priori) and one does not, does not mean we should count the first event as a statistically probable event; nor should we turn our attention to the second, unrealized event and declare "Ah! What luck!" The basic reasoning is: "Well, I never would have expected this sucky thing to happen; but at least a suckier thing didn't happen."
Having my wallet not stolen is not lucky. I generally don't expect my wallet to be stolen. Having my cell phone stolen is unlucky. The same applies, but it sucks and it happened.
Happening upon a live bomb and surviving is not lucky. Happening upon a live bomb is unlucky. Not dying is pretty much what I'd expect on a given day. Now, in this case, you might use some sort of Bayesian updating argument--Given that I have happened upon a live bomb, my probability of dying rises exponentially. That I do not, in fact, die, is then lucky.
Okay. But really--the first event (bomb) was pretty damned unlucky--let's not forget that.
And finally, while I admire the optimism displayed by many of the hurricane victims, let's think about this use of luck. Is it really lucky to be hit by a hurricane and have your dog die? It's no doubt better than dying with your whole family in the flooded basement, but neither event is statistically probable; the first occurs. Do we then say, thank goodness the other statistically improbable event didn't occur?
Think how bizaare it would be if everytime you shared a story of suck from your life, someone said to you, "Oh, but how lucky you didn't get attacked by a pack of wild hyenas today!"
Um, yeah, I guess, fuck-o.
So, is this use of luck (which is really really pervasive--start lookin' for it and you'll be inundated with so much "good luck" you'll run out to buy a lottery ticket) just our meagre attempt to make_ life_ happy? To see the glass half full? (when it's really on a quarter-full?) Or are people hip to a new psychosis I just haven't gotten hold of yet?
These definitions may be Webster-sanctioned, but I ain't buyin'. The first seems to hit closest to the mark, but let's clean it up a bit, shall we? To me, luck is a deviation from events which have highest statistical mass associated with them which, further, either confers some benefit upon you or exacts some cost; for instance, let's say you walk to the grocery store every day, and one bright shining day, you happen upon $100. That's lucky. It's an even which happens infrequently if ever, and for reasons beyond your control, you experience an event contained in the outer tails of probability distribution. Yes, you could also pass by a turkey one day, or a giant wooden ship parked in the parking lot for no particular reason; we would not assign the word luck to these events unless you're a turkey or ship hunter or have a morbid fear of turkeys and or wooden ships.
Now I get irritated by lots of uses of particular words, but I'm especially irritated with this case because people keep applying it to my life stories all the frickin' time, yo. Examples (drawn from my life and other sources):
1) My cell phone was stolen, but not my wallet. Response from many: "Wow, you got really lucky!"
2) On the news, I learned that a group of construction workers happened upon an unknowingly live mortar shell (bomb). They did not die. Response from reporter: "Yes, they certainly were lucky."
3) When watching the Katrina disaster stories on tv, many victims stated how lucky they were that they only lost their dog, their old uncle, their homes.
Maybe you see where I'm headed, dear reader. The above events are statistically improbable in some way; however, the net outcome is generally unlucky if anything. Luck is being incorrectly used here to compare two statistically improbable events, one of which occurred and one which did not. Now unless you're reaching into the far past of probability, we assign probability to events before they occur. So, just because one event occurs (which was assigned a small chance of occurence a priori) and one does not, does not mean we should count the first event as a statistically probable event; nor should we turn our attention to the second, unrealized event and declare "Ah! What luck!" The basic reasoning is: "Well, I never would have expected this sucky thing to happen; but at least a suckier thing didn't happen."
Having my wallet not stolen is not lucky. I generally don't expect my wallet to be stolen. Having my cell phone stolen is unlucky. The same applies, but it sucks and it happened.
Happening upon a live bomb and surviving is not lucky. Happening upon a live bomb is unlucky. Not dying is pretty much what I'd expect on a given day. Now, in this case, you might use some sort of Bayesian updating argument--Given that I have happened upon a live bomb, my probability of dying rises exponentially. That I do not, in fact, die, is then lucky.
Okay. But really--the first event (bomb) was pretty damned unlucky--let's not forget that.
And finally, while I admire the optimism displayed by many of the hurricane victims, let's think about this use of luck. Is it really lucky to be hit by a hurricane and have your dog die? It's no doubt better than dying with your whole family in the flooded basement, but neither event is statistically probable; the first occurs. Do we then say, thank goodness the other statistically improbable event didn't occur?
Think how bizaare it would be if everytime you shared a story of suck from your life, someone said to you, "Oh, but how lucky you didn't get attacked by a pack of wild hyenas today!"
Um, yeah, I guess, fuck-o.
So, is this use of luck (which is really really pervasive--start lookin' for it and you'll be inundated with so much "good luck" you'll run out to buy a lottery ticket) just our meagre attempt to make_ life_ happy? To see the glass half full? (when it's really on a quarter-full?) Or are people hip to a new psychosis I just haven't gotten hold of yet?
Labels: Ranting
posted by slickaphonic at 7:30 PM
2 Comments:
Think Autism!
In other words, this is another example of social intercourse being totally opaque. And where applying rational constructs is an exercise to bring order where there is only the chaos of other's fuzzy non-thinking. bleh. Want to join my android family?
I know I only succeed in driving myself insane when I analyze these things...but I can't help it. All of these glaring infractions on logic just shout to me--"Solve Us!" "Avenge us!"
Those are the voices in my head.
Well, I'm off to think autism for awhile. I'll let you know how it works out.
Post a Comment
<< Home