Zemblanity

[ZAFCorrection]

So a series of (actually minor) unfortunate events has occurred in my life lately, which are generally related to having a larger and closer social circle. Individually you could categorize them under "shit happens," but the pattern is pretty clear if you zoom out. If I wanted the problem to go away, I would cut people off or otherwise set firmer boundaries. It is what it is at this point in time.

The interesting thing is the opposite of serendipity, which apparently has been dubbed zemblanity* (see wikipedia). It seems to be the root of a lot of financial sob stories I have heard. I'm probably stepping on well-trod ground since avoiding zemblanity seems at least implicit in ERE (didn't fully read the book), and I know Jacob or someone has mentioned fostering serendipity here on at least one occasion. Anyone use zemblanity minimization as a goal in their lifestyle design?

* The name is hilarious to me for some reason, which is a non-trivial reason why this thread exists.

[unemployable]

That word is literally a malamanteau.

So basically, "you know shit's fucked up and you're just waiting on the details"? Sounds like the premise of the show Catfish.

[George the original one]

Uh, yeah, I try to detour around Zembla sites: the bad neighborhoods, the people associated with bad neighborhoods, and, just in general, anything that isn't going to lead where I want it to.

[Jason]

I'm a bit confused because there appears to be two definitions of the word being utilized.

If it's the opposite of serendipity, that implies two outcomes are always a possibility. Shit happens can be unexpected. Shit things happening in a relationship doesn't mean its necessarily a shit relationship.

But shit happening where only shit can happen, that does not imply the opposite of serendipity as one would not expect a positive outcome to be a possibility in such circumstances/relationships.

[IlliniDave]

I'm not sure exactly what you are lumping under "zemblanity" (probably doesn't matter), but in general we do make a lot of our own "luck", good and bad. I've heard "lucky breaks" described as "where preparation and opportunity meet". To an extent I try to keep myself in that zone. I could say that trying to bias the playing field towards serendipitous environments is indirectly planning to avoid its converse. One of the reasons finding Mrs iDave v2.0 is not near the top of my list is probably a subconscious zemblanity management reflex.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Good to know there's a word for this. I've definitely learned this lesson the hard way. Zemblanity happens when you surround yourself with dysfunctional systems. Their dysfunction generates externalities that leak into your life. Usually these systems exist in the form of dysfunctional people, but they could also exist with dysfunctional organizations or places that generate problems that find their way into your life.

The best thing to do is avoid dysfunctional people like the plague. I made the mistake once of making friends with a bunch of dysfunctional people, thinking they would just be my friends and I could avoid their problems. But their dysfunction created so many externalities that it brought my life down, and so I had to set extremely firm boundaries.

[jacob]

Anyone use zemblanity minimization as a goal in their lifestyle design?

Yes, and probably more so than fostering serendipity: Setting up the environment to prevent accidents receives a higher priority than setting things up to create windfalls. Put it another way, I'm more focused on reducing incidences of being unlucky than increasing incidences of being lucky.

In some sense, I'm not sure I would recommend it as a life strategy. One is rarely appreciated for any effort that goes towards avoiding accidents ... at least not nearly as much as one is rewarded for windfalls($). Furthermore, the personal reward is in having to learn how to watch other people or the world in general play that game badly. It's a bit like watching slow train wrecks: "Wait for it .. wait for it ... 3... 2... 1... Ding!"

($) Because whereas recognizing avoided accidents require second-order thinking, windfalls are pretty obvious to spot.

Perhaps this is just a function of above average analytical skills coupled with below average salesmanship/charisma... which might be fixable by working on one's salesmanship(*). I've never seen this work in nature though.

I think in conclusion that insofar one wishes to dedicate oneself to examining the "complexity of all the things that could possibly go wrong" one has to either play the role of the doctor with a sick patient who thinks everything is well or that of a scientist who treats it as an impersonal case study (borrowing from AL).

(*) Although zero-information diets, that is, the deliberate fostering of personal ignorance might also bring the two into balance.

[Ego]

The ability to avoid zemblanity may be a prerequisite for fostering serendipity.

It reminds me of a story I read about the difference between amateur and professional tennis. In an amateur match something like 80% of the points are lost when a player makes a mistake (net ball, double fault) so the winner is the person who makes fewer mistakes. In a professional match on the other hand most points are won by skill (hitting the ball just beyond the opponent's reach). It's as if they are two different games.

Avoiding zemblanity is amateur tennis while fostering serendipity is the professional version.

[jacob]

@Ego - It's this one: https://www.amazon.com/Inner-Game-Tenni ... 394491548/ (I recommend it)... Where it gets interesting (and the point of the book) is that IRL most [tennis players] are amateurs but many play as if they're professionals and lose accordingly.

Optimal strategy depends on the game type/environment. For example, it's different between tennis and base jumping. Generous protections for failure (see e.g. US bankruptcy laws) allows more amateurs to play as if they're professionals because losing is not as costly as it otherwise would be.

[Toska2]

Right right. I live by two quotes in this area.

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

"Some seek control of their lives, in a futile attempt to help themselves to survive."

The act of doing always introduces other events, whether its serendipity or zemblanity is a matter of perspective.

Here is a story.
There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.

"Maybe," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.

"Maybe," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "Maybe," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "Maybe," said the farmer.

[ZAFCorrection]

@Jason

I think zemblanity would be the outcome of a probability distribution which generally skews or is centered in a negative region. Though, maybe that distribution could with low probability generate positive outcomes which we might post hoc-ly call serendipitous. My understanding of what it means is not 100%.

[Jason]

I think JLF's "windfalls vs. accidents" dichotomy gets to the heart of the matter. And parsing out whether this is two sides of the same coin or two different coins is probably impossible as it can be both. I think. Although, from a strictly semantic angle, I think I would use "windfalls vs. disastrous losses" as at least an option. For instance, borrowing money to invest. Yes, you can have a windfall, but most likely, you will lose, disastrously. That to me is not an accident. I think it works on both levels: "good things happening vs. bad things not happening" as well as "good things happening vs. bad things happening."

[daylen]

It appears to me that being hyper-sensitive to "good" and/or "bad" outcomes increases the chance of encountering black swan events. This is probably associated with the "P' in my "INTP" label, and with the degree to which I perceive reality as random.

[daylen]

Here is the problem I have with too much optimization.. equating events to their outcomes will always lead to an uneven sampling of event space, because the "outcomes" are chosen based on convenience and the details of the events are forever lost. Iterate Bayes' rule a few thousand times and you end up in a perception bubble that projects all complexity into a neatly organized filling-cabinet of simplified patterns.

Bias is inevitable.