Have definition, need word

[jazzytrav]

I'm trying to think of a word or phrase that describes what I assume is a statistical concept. The situation is where one gets angry that an improbable outcome has occurred, using the fact that it is improbable to declare that the outcome should not have happened and therefore they have "bad luck." Specifically, this would be a situation where the causes leading to the outcome are repeated without the person noticing until it causes the improbable outcome. This is probably much more simple than I'm making it, but my brain is mush right now.

 

Example: Every morning, I come into my office and put the key in the door. Nearly every morning, I put in the correct key and the door unlocks. One day, I put in the wrong key on accident, and get angry because this highly improbable event should not have happened, even though my rational mind knows that "improbable" does not mean "impossible." I wonder why it had to happen at this point, and not any other point (since I'm presently experiencing "this point" and not any other), though also knowing this fails to take into account that the sheer amount of times that I perform this action means that at some point, the negative outcome, however improbable, will likely occur.

 

I would take a word, phrase, larger concept...heck, I'll read a book on it if anyone has one in mind. It is directly related to something I'm trying to do at work, so any help is much appreciated. I'm not much of a statistics person, so I'm hoping this will be an easy answer for someone on this site http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif

[rwa12]

I guess it could be loosely considered an outlier. It is an event that is possible but happens infrequently. Maybe there is a better one?

[jazzytrav]

Correct, but I'm looking for something more specifically tied to the human perception that it is "bad luck" or the idea that "this could only happen to me" while ignoring evidence that it COULD happen more often, but simply doesn't.

 

Another idea somewhat along the same lines would be a person assuming an event only happens to them because they don't notice it happening to others, or it's simply not talked about or shown by others. A popular example would be someone thinking that there is something wrong with their relationship because they fight sometimes in private, and assuming this is only a problem for them because they don't see others doing it (though they likely do, but in private).

 

I think the main thing I'm looking for is some kind of negative assumption made that could only be made be removing a key variable.

[sbrylski]

Selective memory?

 

E.g. Thinking you always lose coin tosses, even though your lifetime record is around .500, because you remember the losses more than the wins.

[jazzytrav]

That's much closer to what I'm getting at, but I feel like it's missing something. It may be essentially the same thing, but I'm thinking more in cases where the outcome is highly improbable. In other words, the act is so routine that the outcome is assumed, so that when the outcome is different (in most cases, negative), it is perceived as something that "always" happens. So if the possibility of the negative outcome is 1/1000, the other 999 times are routine or mechanical and not taken into account, so that it is perceived by that person as 1/1 because they fail to account for routine.

[Patrick425]

Over exaggerating the frequency of outliers syndrome.

[rwa12]

Self Centered Indifference? If it happens to me I notice, if it doesn't, I don't care.

[RockCoCougars]

It's slang, but how about "I'm snakebit". You could also use the phrase as follows: 'How could a team not win a World Series in 105 years. They should have lucked into at least one. The Cubs are truly snakebit.'

[jjkoestler]

Rational Expectations

[homer]

Taint McFadden

[Patrick425]

Rational Expectations

Don't you mean irrational expectations?

 

Also, just to tweek my original "term"..Over exaggerating the frequency of unpleasant outliers syndrome.

 

[jjkoestler]

Rational expectation - The model/outcome is correct even though an error occurs. Errors are random.

[jazzytrav]

Rational expectation - The model/outcome is correct even though an error occurs. Errors are random.

Yes, but this assumes that the subject understands the randomness of errors, which isn't the case because their expectation is assumed. It takes the routine into account, but not the response to the error as being random (meaning the subject finds it to be anything BUT random, and actually directed at them on a personal level).

Over exaggerating the frequency of unpleasant outliers syndrome

I actually kinda like this, although "over exaggeration" has always seemed redundant to me. Exaggeration of the Frequency of Unpleasant Outliers. That has a pompous ring to it that might fit my means.

Self Centered Indifference? If it happens to me I notice, if it doesn't, I don't care.

I also like this one, as it covers the self-centered nature of what I'm describing. That's likely the most powerful component, as it narrows the situation to being personal/individual and within only the exact moment, while being indifferent to the one's own experience, the experience of others, or even the cause.

Taint McFadden

I love this site.

 

[hawing]

Is Taint McFadden our mascot yet? If not, why not?

 

Are you thinking of 'anomaly'? I'm not a stats person either, so if I'm way off, cut me some slack.

[TooLiveBrew]

Taint McFadden

Hah! Nice.

[bjkrautk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

Particularly the 'self-fufilling prophesy' part, wherein the person's perceptions lead to repetition of behaviors to make the event reoccur.

[dadofandrew]

In the poker world, this would be similar to losing on a one or two-outer...it can happen, but it is a longshot, so when it does, it's very frustrating.

[homer]

In the poker world, this would be similar to losing on a one or two-outer...it can happen, but it is a longshot, so when it does, it's very frustrating.

Bad beat?

[mtrebs]

I refer to this as the story of my life.

[jazzytrav]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

Particularly the 'self-fufilling prophesy' part, wherein the person's perceptions lead to repetition of behaviors to make the event reoccur.

I think the collection on that page covers it all. Always a great source of info, bjkrautk, thanks!

 

Although, "Exaggeration of the Frequency of Unpleasant Outliers" is still pretty awesome, and I don't know that I can give it up http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif

[CheezWizHed]

Well, I guess the Packers selecting Dan Devine as head coach over Joe Paternocan cause this to happen...

 

Canadeo became livid when he learned Devine was about to be named coach. As Canadeo left home for the executive committee's meeting that day, he was so distracted that he smashed through a closed garage door as he backed his car out of the garage.

 

A daughter had used the car earlier that day and left the garage door up. As Canadeo stormed out of the house, he didn't notice the door was up and hit the garage door opener, closing the door as he was about to leave.

[ttsather]

If I were to give it a name, I'd probably call it a "________ Fallacy"

It sounds like you're talking about someone who irrationally discounts the general randomness of mistakes and becomes convinced that some other force is in play affecting outcomes.

I can see how confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecies do come into play. The example that comes to mind is the person who has had a few unfortunate happenstances and says "Watch out, I'm having a bad day." It can ultimately be self-fulfilling if their deteriorating mood as a result the happenstances leads to further bad stuff that was made more likely to occur because they happened to be upset (e.g. snapping at a coworker and getting reprimanded).

Maybe I'd call it the "Bad Day Fallacy"?

I'm not convinced I fully understand what you're talking about, though.

[jazzytrav]

It sounds like you're talking about someone who irrationally discounts the general randomness of mistakes and becomes convinced that some other force is in play affecting outcomes.

 

I think you understand it pretty well here. Self-fulfilling prophecy is more a result than a cause, but as a whole, I think it comes down to a combination of several words or concepts in concert.

 

I'm not convinced I fully understand what you're talking about, though.

 

Heck, I'm not even convinced that I know what I'm talking about. I think the general idea spans a lot of differing examples that stem from the same root, which is a misguided attempt to blame anything and anyone but ourselves. Based on that nature, I think confirmation bias comes the closest, though it doesn't necessarily fit the classic definition.

[GoudaBrew]

I started reading Ron Shandler's 2012 Baseball Forecaster 2012 for fantasy preparation and came across this. I think it might relate to what your thinking about:

 

Good Luck Truism:

Good luck is rare and everyone has more of it than you do. That's the law.