In our daily lives, we often fall victim to the illusion of control, believing that our actions significantly impact events beyond our influence. However, humorous anecdotes, psychological experiments, and real-world examples shed light on the fallacy of this perception. From the man with the red hat deterring giraffes to placebo buttons and the frenzy surrounding economic pronouncements, the evidence suggests that our control over external circumstances is far more limited than we imagine.
Every morning, just before nine o’clock, a curious figure with a red hat takes his position in the town square. With exuberant gestures, he waves his cap around in wild circles. After a brief spell, he vanishes. One day, a policeman approaches him, puzzled. “What are you doing?” he asks. “I’m keeping the giraffes away,” replies the man. “But there aren’t any giraffes here,” the policeman counters. “Well, I must be doing a good job, then,” the man concludes. This humorous anecdote illustrates the fascinating concept of the illusion of control, where people believe they can influence outcomes over which they have no real power.
The Man with the Red Hat
The whimsical image of the man with the red hat in the square is an excellent metaphor for how the illusion of control can deceive humans. His behavior—waving his cap around wildly every morning—seems arbitrary and pointless, yet the man believes his actions effectively keep giraffes away. When questioned, he responds, “Well, I must be doing a good job.” His confidence in the efficacy of his actions is absurd, given that there are no giraffes in sight, but this response reveals a deep-seated psychological phenomenon.
This story highlights the lengths the mind will go to maintain control over events. It’s not that the man’s actions impact anything, but his belief that they do is enough to create a sense of empowerment. This kind of thinking—where we attribute outcomes to our actions, even when no causal link exists—illustrates how easily false connections can fool the human mind. The man with the red hat believes that by waving his cap, he’s keeping something at bay, much like many people engage in rituals or habits, believing these actions will influence outcomes, even though the world operates largely independently of such efforts.
This manifests in how people believe their thoughts, intentions, or actions can influence the future. We see patterns where there are none, connect dots in a story that doesn’t exist, and comfort ourselves with the illusion of control. Just as the man in the square convinces himself of his role in keeping giraffes away, we too often convince ourselves that we are the architects of our fate when, in reality, much of life is beyond our influence.
The Lottery Ticket Incident
The scenario of buying a lottery ticket for a friend with a broken leg brings the illusion of control into clearer focus. Though filling out the lottery ticket is entirely arbitrary, my friend’s reaction highlights a common belief: the assumption that personal involvement or choice in a random event—like selecting numbers—can influence the outcome. He balked when I handed him the ticket, insisting that my selections would prevent him from winning. He wanted to fill it out himself, convinced that only his personal involvement would give him a shot at winning.
My friend was experiencing a form of “magical thinking,” the belief that one’s thoughts, actions, or rituals can influence events, even when these events are entirely governed by chance. The lottery is a perfect example of this. The numbers you choose, the time you buy the ticket or the method you use to fill out the form all have zero impact on the random process of drawing the winning numbers. Yet, many people believe there is some correlation between their choices and the outcome. This behavior is not unique to the lottery. People engage in various superstitions and rituals hoping to affect outcomes, from carrying lucky charms to wearing specific clothes on important days.
At its core, the lottery ticket incident illustrates a common human need for control in the face of randomness. It’s a way of coping with the uncertainty of life by creating a sense of agency, even in situations where we have no real influence. This belief in control is comforting, but ultimately, it distorts the reality of how outcomes are determined. It highlights the tendency to think we can manipulate the outcome of random events simply because we are involved in them.
The Casino and the Dice
In the high-stakes environment of a casino, the illusion of control becomes even more pronounced. Players roll dice believing that their throwing technique, their effort, or the intensity of their actions can affect the outcome. When they desire a high number, they throw the dice with force, hoping the energy they put into the throw will produce the desired result. Conversely, when hoping for a low number, they throw the dice gently, as if the force of their action could influence the randomness inherent in the game.
This behavior illustrates the deeply ingrained human need to believe we can influence outcomes, even when chance rules supreme. The outcome of a dice roll is determined purely by the laws of probability, yet people continue to act as if their efforts can override these laws. The strength of their throw or the angle at which the dice hit the table becomes imbued with significance despite being irrelevant to the random nature of the game.
This belief is not exclusive to casinos. In everyday life, many people engage in similar behaviors—crossing their fingers before a job interview or thinking their lucky number will bring success. These actions, based on superstition or magical thinking, reflect the same illusion of control seen in the casino. They are rooted in the desire to feel that our actions matter, that we can direct our destiny, and that luck is something we can manipulate.
The Discovery of the Illusion of Control
In 1965, psychologists Jenkins and Ward conducted a groundbreaking experiment that laid the foundation for understanding the illusion of control. They set up a simple system involving a light and two switches. The light would flash on and off, but the timing of the flashes was entirely random, independent of the participants’ actions. The switches, however, were connected to the light, giving participants the false belief that they could control when the light turned on and off.
The researchers discovered that people are prone to overestimating their ability to influence random events. Even when the light flashed randomly, participants believed that flipping the switches somehow impacted the timing of the flashes. This experiment demonstrated how easily people can convince themselves that they have control over situations when, in fact, their actions have no effect on the outcome. The need for control is so strong that people will create connections between their actions and the results, even when these connections do not exist.
This phenomenon is rooted in the brain’s tendency to seek patterns. We are wired to look for cause and effect, even in random events. This can be adaptive, allowing us to anticipate and navigate the world. However, when it leads us to believe we can control truly uncontrollable things, it can result in distorted perceptions of reality. As Jenkins and Ward’s experiment shows, the illusion of control is a powerful cognitive bias that shapes how we interpret the world around us.
The Power of Perception in Pain and Control
One of the most fascinating demonstrations of the illusion of control comes from research on pain tolerance. Participants were exposed to loud noises in a soundproof booth in a study investigating how people perceive and withstand pain. As the volume increased, participants were asked to signal when they could no longer tolerate the sound. The twist came when participants were placed in Room B, with a red panic button on the wall. The button was purely for show—it had no function at all—but the mere presence of the button gave participants the illusion that they could control the noise. As a result, those with access to the button could endure significantly more noise than those in the room without it.
This experiment illustrates how powerful the perception of control can be. Even though the button had no effect, the belief that they could intervene allowed participants to tolerate more pain. This is a prime example of how the human mind can endure hardship when it believes it has some agency over the situation. When people perceive that they control their circumstances, their resilience increases. This psychological phenomenon is not just about enduring physical discomfort. It extends to emotional and psychological stress, where a sense of control can help individuals persevere through difficult situations.
In historical contexts, such as the experiences of prisoners in concentration camps, the belief that they could influence their fate, even in small ways, helped them survive. This psychological power of perceived control is essential to human resilience and demonstrates how the mind’s belief in its agency can make the impossible seem bearable. It is a testament to the strength of the human spirit, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
The Placebo Button and the Illusion of Control in Daily Life
Placebo buttons are a subtle but pervasive feature of modern life, designed to create a sense of control where none truly exists. A prime example of this is the pedestrian traffic signals in cities. In many places, there are buttons at crosswalks that pedestrians can press to request a signal change. However, the button often does not serve a real function. It’s simply a psychological tool that gives pedestrians the illusion of control over the traffic light, making them feel that they are playing a role in the timing of the signal change.
Similarly, in elevators, many “door-open” and “door-close” buttons are not connected to the operation of the doors at all. They are placed there to make passengers feel control over when the doors open or close, even though the timing is typically automated. These placebo buttons reduce frustration and impatience by offering a sense of agency, even when no real control is granted. In these scenarios, the buttons are a form of psychological manipulation designed to enhance user experience without changing the underlying reality.
These subtle forms of illusion are everywhere. In open-plan offices, fake temperature dials or controls are often installed, giving employees the sense that they can adjust the climate, even though the actual temperature is controlled centrally. This illusion of control makes people feel more comfortable and less likely to complain, even when the system is entirely out of their hands. These placebo buttons are powerful tools for shaping human behavior by giving people a sense of control over their environment, even when such control is purely illusory.
Placebo Buttons in Economic Systems
Placebo buttons are not just found in everyday objects but are also a key feature of modern economic systems. The federal funds rate, for instance, is a short-term interest rate set by central banks, and while it has a direct impact on interbank lending, it has little effect on long-term interest rates or broader economic trends. Despite this, the market reacts dramatically to every change in the rate because people believe it will influence the economy. The reality is that the federal funds rate is just one small part of a much larger, more complex system. Yet, it commands enormous attention due to the perception that it has power over economic conditions.
Similarly, speeches and announcements by central bankers, such as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, can cause significant market movements, even though these statements often contain little tangible information. The market’s reaction is driven not by the content of the statements but by the belief that these pronouncements hold great influence. In essence, these economic placebo buttons manipulate public perception, making people feel that the economy is more predictable and controllable than it truly is.
This widespread belief in the power of central banks and government officials over the economy reflects the broader societal tendency to seek control in an uncontrollable world. The truth is that the economy, like many other systems, is governed by complex, unpredictable forces that no single entity can fully control. However, by continuing to push these placebo buttons, economic leaders create the illusion of control, perpetuating a false sense of stability and predictability.
The Truth About Control
In the end, the question we must ask ourselves is: How much control do we really have over our lives? While convincing ourselves that we can direct our path with precision and certainty is easy, the reality is much more chaotic. We can influence some aspects of our lives—our choices, actions, and responses—but a vast array of forces are beyond our control. Whether it’s the randomness of the lottery, the roll of the dice, or the intricacies of the global economy, there are countless factors that we simply cannot predict or shape.
Instead of focusing on the illusion of control, it’s more productive to focus on what we can control: our behavior, our mindset, and our interactions with others. These are the areas where we can make a real difference. Everything else is out of our hands. Let go of the illusion that you can control everything and instead embrace the uncertainty of life. By accepting that some things are beyond your influence, you can find peace in the unpredictability of the world around you. What will be, will be.
Conclusion
The illusion of control deceives us into thinking we hold greater power over external events than we truly do. Through captivating anecdotes and empirical evidence, we discover that our influence is limited and often illusory. Understanding this truth allows us to let go of unnecessary stress and focus on the aspects of life where we can genuinely make a difference. So, embrace the reality that control is an illusion and find solace in the wisdom of “que sera, sera.”
This article is a part of The Art of Thinking Clearly Series based on Rolf Dobelli’s book.