On luck and randomness in life

I sent a message to someone on LinkedIn saying luck and randomness played a large role in my life. Out of curiosity, I asked Google Gemini a few questions about the influence and chaos and randomness in life, and it had some interesting things to say.

A Conversation on Randomness, Narrative, and the Meaning of Life with Google Gemini

What follows is a dialogue exploring one of the most fundamental tensions of the human condition: our search for meaning in a world that often seems governed by chance. We dive into the science of chaos, the psychology of storytelling, and the philosophical frameworks designed to help us navigate this profound uncertainty.

Q1: How much of our lives are truly random, and are the stories we tell ourselves about success and failure just a neat ribbon we tie around a chaotic sequence of events after the fact?

Life, in its essence, is a profoundly random affair, a chaotic whirlwind of events that we, as meaning-seeking creatures, desperately try to tame by weaving them into neat, coherent narratives. The stories we tell about our lives, our successes, and our failures are often just that: a narrative ribbon tied neatly around a jumble of chance occurrences.

This fundamental tension between the chaotic nature of existence and our innate need for order helps to explain why we so often fail to appreciate the vast role that randomness plays in shaping our destinies. We are, in effect, storytellers living in a world governed by the roll of a die.

At a scientific level, randomness is baked into the fabric of our universe. Quantum mechanics, the bedrock of modern physics, suggests that at the most fundamental level, events are probabilistic, not deterministic. In biology, the very engine of evolution is random genetic mutation, with natural selection then acting upon these chance variations. This inherent unpredictability extends to the complex systems that govern our daily lives, a concept explored in chaos theory. The “butterfly effect,” where a small, seemingly insignificant event can trigger a cascade of unforeseen consequences, is a testament to the chaotic and unpredictable nature of our world.

If life is so random, why do we insist on seeing it as a logical progression of cause and effect? The answer lies in our psychology. The human brain is a pattern-seeking machine, constantly trying to make sense of the deluge of information it receives. We have a deep-seated aversion to uncertainty and a powerful craving for meaning. This leads to what Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman calls the “narrative fallacy.”

We connect disparate events, often after the fact, to create a coherent and plausible story. This process gives us a sense of understanding and control, but it’s often an illusion. We retrospectively craft narratives that make our successes seem inevitable and our failures a result of specific, identifiable mistakes. This is further compounded by “hindsight bias,” the tendency to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were.

Our failure to appreciate the role of randomness is not just a philosophical oversight; it has profound implications for how we view ourselves and others. We tend to ascribe our successes to our own skill, talent, and hard work, while attributing our failures to external factors—or, in a more self-critical light, to personal shortcomings. Conversely, we often judge others’ failures more harshly, underestimating the role that bad luck may have played.

Q2: This is a fascinating tension. What have some of the great thinkers across science and philosophy said about this relationship between randomness and our obsession with narrative?

The question of whether life is a random sequence of events or a structured narrative is a profound one, drawing a chorus of opinions from some of the brightest minds in science, philosophy, and literature.

The Scientists: Embracing Randomness and Contingency

• From Physics (Leonard Mlodinow): In The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, physicist Leonard Mlodinow argues that we systematically underestimate the role of chance. He shows that what we often attribute to skill and determinate cause is, statistically, the predictable outcome of random processes.

• From Biology (Stephen Jay Gould): The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould championed the idea of “contingency” in evolution. He famously argued that if we could “replay the tape of life,” the outcome would be different every time. Our existence, in this view, is a glorious accident, not an inevitability.

The Cognitive Psychologists: The Narrative Fallacy

• Daniel Kahneman: The Nobel laureate coined the term “narrative fallacy” to describe our tendency to create flawed, coherent stories of the past to make sense of the world. Our minds crave causality and simplicity, leading us to construct flimsy accounts that give us an illusory sense of understanding.

The Skeptical Empiricist: Fooled by Randomness

• Nassim Nicholas Taleb: In his books Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan, Taleb argues that we live in a world governed by extreme, unpredictable events. He critiques our tendency to create retrospective explanations that make these “Black Swans” seem predictable. For Taleb, “mild success” can be explained by skill, but “wild success” is almost always attributable to luck.

The Philosophers: Finding Meaning in the Void

• Existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre & Albert Camus): Philosophers like Sartre and Camus confronted the “absurdity” of a universe without inherent meaning. For Sartre, we are “condemned to be free”—radically free to create our own meaning in a world that offers none. There is no pre-written narrative; we are the authors.

• Stoicism (Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius): The Stoics focused on how to achieve tranquility within a chaotic universe. Their core practice is the “dichotomy of control”: differentiating between what is in our power (our thoughts and actions) and what is not (everything else). By accepting the randomness of the external world, we can achieve inner peace.

Q3: I want to go deeper. What are the meta-level concepts behind these different perspectives? What fundamental conflicts do they reveal about the human condition?

To understand the meta-level, we can break it down into three core areas: the conflict in reality, the reason for our cognition, and the purpose of philosophy.

1. The Meta-Reality: The Clash of Two Worlds

The central tension is the chasm between two realities we inhabit simultaneously:

• The Scientific Reality: This is the universe as described by physics and statistics. Its meta-characteristic is indifference. The universe is a vast, impersonal system governed by physical laws and probabilistic chance. There is no intention, no “why,” no story.

• The Lived Reality: This is the world of human consciousness. Its meta-characteristic is meaning. This world is composed entirely of stories, intentions, relationships, and cause-and-effect.

The friction between these two realities is the source of most existential anxiety. You are a storyteller living inside a library whose books are all written in a language you can’t read.

2. The Meta-Cognition: Why We Are Narrative Addicts

The meta-question is why our brains evolved to create narratives. The answer is survival.

• The Brain as an Ancestral Survival Tool: Your brain is not a truth-finding machine; it’s an organ that evolved to help your ancestors survive. In that context, narrative thinking was incredibly effective. The hominid who saw a rustle in the grass and created a quick, causal story (“Lion -> Danger -> Run”) survived. We are the descendants of the paranoid and hasty storytellers.

• Efficiency over Accuracy: Building a coherent story from a few data points is metabolically cheap and fast. It’s far easier than the slow, energy-intensive process of statistical reasoning. Our brains are not flawed; they are simply running ancient software on modern hardware.

3. The Meta-Purpose: Frameworks for Living in the Gap

The philosophical perspectives are practical operating systems designed to function within this gap.

• Stoicism (The Operating System of Acceptance): Its meta-purpose is to achieve tranquility by firewalling the self from external chaos. It doesn’t deny randomness; it makes it irrelevant to one’s happiness by focusing only on what one can control: our own thoughts and actions.

• Existentialism (The Operating System of Creation): Its meta-purpose is to find meaning by embracing radical freedom in a meaningless universe. It looks at the story-less universe and sees not a void, but a blank canvas. The act of creating our own narrative becomes the ultimate human project.

The most enduring philosophical systems are not about discovering a hidden “meaning of life.” They are manuals for how to construct a subjective, personal meaning in the face of objective meaninglessness.

Q4: This is a lot to take in. What other key concepts or mental models are necessary to bridge the gap from abstract theory to practical application in daily life?

To make sense of these aspects, you need to bridge the gap between abstract understanding and practical application. Here are four crucial concepts that complete the picture.

1. Intellectual Humility and the Art of “I Don’t Know”

Because our minds are wired to create stories, our default state is one of overconfidence. Intellectual humility is the practice of recognizing that your knowledge is limited and your beliefs might be wrong. It’s the ability to say “I don’t know” or “I was wrong.” Embracing randomness means accepting that the world is far more complex and unpredictable than your brain will ever admit.

2. Thinking in Probabilities, Not Absolutes

Since the world is probabilistic, you need to upgrade your mental software. This means moving away from black-and-white certainties and towards shades of grey. A practical way to do this is through Bayesian thinking: update your beliefs in proportion to new evidence. Instead of asking “Is this true or false?”, you ask “How likely is this to be true?” and adjust your confidence level as new information comes in.

3. Using Narrative Wisely: The Story as a Tool, Not a Truth

While the “narrative fallacy” is a dangerous trap, stories are also essential human tools. The key is to distinguish between:

• Explanatory Narratives (Dangerous): Stories we tell to explain the past (“The company failed because…”). These are often oversimplified.

• Motivational Narratives (Useful): Stories we tell to shape the future (“I am the kind of person who…”). This is not a claim about objective truth; it’s a tool for creating it.

Be a skeptic of the stories you tell about why something happened, but be a passionate believer in the stories you tell about who you want to become.

4. The Spectrum of Control: Your Personal Operating System

Instead of a simple “control vs. no control” switch, think of it as a spectrum:

1. No Control (The Weather, The Global Economy): This is the domain of Stoic acceptance. Wasting energy here is futile.

2. Influence (Your Relationships, Your Reputation): You don’t have direct control, but your actions have a probabilistic impact. Focus on making the best possible choices (your process), not on the ultimate result.

3. Full Control (Your Intentions, Your Judgments, Your Actions): This is your kingdom. This is the domain of Existentialist creation and the only area where you can demand success from yourself.

Q5: This framework seems compelling, but what are the strongest counterarguments? What are some powerful perspectives that push back against this emphasis on randomness and narrative fallacy?

That’s a crucial question. The emphasis on randomness is a powerful lens, but it’s not the only one. Here are several strong counterarguments.

1. The Determinist Universe: “Hidden Variables”

This is the classic scientific and philosophical counterargument. It posits that the universe is a system of cause and effect, and what we perceive as “randomness” is simply a measure of our ignorance. If you could know the exact state of every particle, you could predict the future. In this view, luck is just a placeholder for “variables we haven’t accounted for.”

2. Teleology and Inherent Purpose: The Universe as a Story

This perspective, from many religious and spiritual traditions, argues that the universe is not a random process but is guided by an intelligence or is inherently goal-directed (telos). Events are unfolding toward a specific end or purpose. From this viewpoint, coincidences can be interpreted as synchronicity or fate. The narrative of your life isn’t something you impose after the fact; it’s something you are discovering or fulfilling.

3. Complexity and Emergence: Order from Chaos

This perspective offers a sophisticated middle ground. It agrees that the universe has random components at the micro-level but argues that these interactions give rise to stable, predictable patterns at the macro-level—a phenomenon called “emergence.” This view suggests that our narratives might be more than fallacies; they could be our brain’s effective way of modeling the emergent patterns in our lives.

4. Narrative as a Mode of Truth: The Primacy of Story

This perspective, from narrative psychology and the humanities, argues that framing narrative as a “fallacy” is a fundamental mistake. It posits that storytelling is not a cognitive bug but a primary and valid mode of human understanding. Psychologist Jerome Bruner argued we have two modes of thought: the “paradigmatic” (logical, scientific) and the “narrative” (story-based, concerned with human intentions). To strip the narrative away is to strip away what makes us human.

Q6: What exactly is “contingency” and what role does it play in life? And what are the downsides of using Bayesian and probabilistic thinking as everyday tools?

On Contingency:

In the simplest terms, contingency is the idea that events are not necessary or inevitable; they could have been otherwise. It’s the opposite of determinism. A contingent event is one that depends on a chain of prior conditions, and had any of those conditions been different, the event itself would be different or might not have happened at all.

Your very existence is a product of staggering contingency. Your parents had to meet, a specific sperm cell had to fertilize a specific egg, and every one of your ancestors had to survive long enough to reproduce. Change one tiny event in that chain—a missed train, a different career choice—and you would not be here.

The role contingency plays is to inject both fragility and possibility into life. It’s humbling because it reveals how much of our status is owed to a long chain of luck. It’s empowering because it means the future is not yet written.

On the Downsides of Probabilistic Thinking:

While thinking in probabilities is a powerful antidote to black-and-white thinking, it has several significant downsides in daily life:

1. The “Garbage In, Garbage Out” Problem: Bayesian reasoning requires a “prior probability” (your initial belief), which in real life is often just a biased guess. A flawed starting point leads to a flawed conclusion, no matter how precise the math.

2. It Can Create a False Sense of Precision: Assigning a number like “75% confident” to a complex, uncertain situation can mask deep ignorance and lead to overconfidence.

3. It Fails to Account for “Black Swans”: Probabilistic thinking works well within a known system. It breaks down when the entire system can change unexpectedly in ways nobody assigned a probability to.

4. It’s Cognitively Unnatural: Our brains are creatures of narrative and intuition. Constantly trying to think like a Bayesian computer is slow, draining, and can cause us to ignore crucial non-quantifiable data from our emotions and gut feelings.

Q7: What are the ethical and societal implications of believing in randomness?

This is a crucial question because what we believe about luck and merit shapes the very structure of our society.

• On Meritocracy and Humility: A deep appreciation for randomness challenges the harshness of a pure meritocracy. If success is a mix of talent, hard work, and luck, the successful have a reason for humility, and the unsuccessful have a reason to feel less shame.

• On Justice and Compassion: This belief system can foster a more compassionate and forgiving society. It shifts the focus of justice from pure retribution (“They got what they deserved”) toward rehabilitation and systemic change.

• On Social Responsibility: If you see your own good fortune as partly unearned, it provides a powerful ethical argument for robust social safety nets. They become rational tools to buffer our fellow citizens from the brutal effects of bad luck.

Q8: How do systems and structures either amplify or dampen the effects of randomness?

Randomness doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Individuals exist within systems that act as “luck distributors.”

• Systems that Amplify Randomness: “Winner-Take-All” markets can amplify a small initial lucky break into runaway success. Conversely, cycles of poverty and debt can amplify a minor unlucky event (like a medical bill) into a catastrophic, life-altering one.

• Systems that Dampen Randomness: Social safety nets (unemployment insurance, public health) are society’s primary shock absorbers, preventing a single random event from ruining a life. Progressive taxation and public goods can reinvest the “winnings” of the fortunate to create more opportunities for everyone.

Q9: What is the role of emotion and intuition in navigating a random world?

Emotion and intuition are not just cognitive biases to be suppressed; they are sophisticated information-processing systems.

• Intuition as a Pattern-Matcher: A “gut feeling” is often your subconscious mind recognizing a pattern that your conscious, logical mind hasn’t yet pieced together.

• Emotion as Data: Emotions are crucial signals. Fear signals risk, excitement signals opportunity, and empathy enables cooperation. To make a purely “logical” decision without consulting these signals is to navigate with incomplete data.

• The Synthesis: The wise approach is to treat your intuition as an internal advisor. When you have a strong gut feeling, your rational mind should step in and ask: “What experiences or observations are driving this feeling?” This dialogue between your rational and intuitive systems leads to the most robust decisions.

Q10: How does one practically synthesize these competing ideas into a coherent daily practice?

The ultimate practical question is: How do you live with this knowledge? A useful metaphor is that of a gardener.

1. Choose Your Garden (Existentialist Creation): You have the freedom to decide what matters to you and what seeds to plant (your values, goals, relationships).

2. Prepare the Soil (Effort & Probabilistic Thinking): You can’t control the weather, but you can do everything in your power to improve the odds. You till the soil, add nutrients, and build a fence. This is where you apply hard work and rational planning.

3. Tend the Garden, Accept the Weather (Stoic Acceptance): You show up every day and do the work of a good gardener. But you do not control the drought, the flood, or the blight. You accept these random events with equanimity, focusing on the process of being a good gardener, not on guaranteeing a specific result.

4. Share the Harvest (Ethical Compassion): If you are lucky and have a bountiful harvest, you recognize the crucial role the good weather (luck) played. This fosters humility and encourages you to share your surplus with others whose crops may have failed due to bad luck.

This synthesis allows you to be both a passionate agent and a humble observer, anchoring your identity in your effort and character rather than in the outcomes, which are forever subject to the beautiful and terrifying randomness of the world.