There is a term used in statistics known as “regression to the mean.” In every day terms, it’s also sometimes called the drunken walk of randomness - a recurrent phenomenal thematic sequence of actions that, after noticeably wobbling to the left or right a little bit, return to the statistical average in the middle just by sheer randomness alone. Or simply put, the seeming effects of randomness undergo an eventual regress to the mean. Since the mathematical probabilities controlling unlikely events occurring in a row one after another are not ultimately as foreseeable as they sometimes appear, there should be less excitement in minor oscillations or deviations from the norm. What I'm saying is this: there is an illusory effect brought upon us by mathematical randomness whereby we think we see a pattern that isn't really there. Our minds, clever as they are, sometimes play tricks on us. We needn't rely on high probability guesses to provide us solid framework on which to build our lives. I spoke yesterday briefly on the logical fallacies gamblers find themselves trapped in, which is mainly faith in past random events being a good predictor of future events, which is a mathematically and statistically false assumption. All that being said, I now want to twist and turn some terminology and logic around to arrive at a point. Are we better served placing our time and energies on something in the middle - which has the best potential for a favorable outcome, even if our well-intentioned desires point us to the far left or far right? Should we gamble our lives and future on that which is actually governed by randomness and chance alone? Do we really have the power to choose our battles more wisely? What errors in thinking occur from the lack of intuitive understanding of randomness, knowing in advance our minds are conditioned to seek patterns even when there are none?