Figmentations

Confidence and conviction are admirable traits.  Thus, many of us are familiar with the phrase: “if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.” 

Yet , when it comes to things like political discussions, even the civil ones, with all the divergent points of view out there, I always wonder how anyone can be 100% sure that their view is the only right (or best) view. 

When we look at experts’ forecasts about what the future holds, we don’t have to look too hard to find almost every possible point of view vehemently defended by someone. In the end, who is ultimately most accurate will only be revealed by time.  Someone will clearly be right, whether by design or by accident, it’s just a question of who, what, and when.

Recently on Bloomberg radio I remember hearing “the future” described as this: “the future by definition is unknown and unknowable” and it’s about “tilting the odds in your favor”.

Let’s consider that theory of “being Contrarian” as one strategy for tilting the odds in our favor.  Certainly doing the opposite of what the masses are doing or expecting will put you in a smaller pool of players to stand out in. 

Popular “Contrarian” examples include: Warren Buffett’s investment style; the book “The Contrarian Effect” by Michael Port; and the fictional character of George Costanza, from Seinfeld, whose fictional life turned around when he started doing everything opposite of what he normally would do.

But like any theory, life isn’t operated like a programmed computer.  Not all equations have the same calculable factors, circumstances, or solutions. People are human.

Contrarian or conventional wisdom isn’t always right (or wrong).  I truly believe there is value in regularly, fairly, and reasonably questioning any theory or strategy.  On the other hand, remember, too, that you can also be fundamentally correct in your assessment of a situation, and things could still turn out quite opposite from what you expect.

I believe that there is often more than one theory or strategy that can work as a potential solution to a problem depending on the situation, players, and circumstances involved (known and unknown).

So, I find that the “common sense approach” is always a good concept to bring into the mix.  No matter what theory or strategy we choose to pursue, it seems to make sense to be flexible when other valid points of re-consideration present themselves.  But then again, it depends on what our “common sense” is based on, too. Either way, if we’re not looking for the possibility of a theory having flaws, we are much less likely to notice potential flaws even if in plain site.

I personally have found that there’s nothing wrong with taking your time when making decisions about which strategy or strategies to pursue, especially when potentially large consequences are at stake. “Slow and steady” can win the race over “fast and sporadic”.  We can learn from anything, but I don’t believe we need to experience every possible misfortune to learn about life either.

What do you think about “Tilting the odds in your favor”?  Is it possible?  Is speed of action a game-changer?”