This article is based on the video “Life is determined by ‘probability’. A story where only those who don’t know lose out” published on the YouTube channel “Toma’s Dream Diary”, delving into its content and providing original analysis and insights.
While watching this video, I suddenly remembered a certain quote.
“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
Thomas Edison
And another one: the phrase, “Geniuses are prolific.”
Picasso, Mozart, Edison—what geniuses who left their mark on history have in common is not a “high batting average (success rate),” but rather an “overwhelming number of at-bats (number of attempts).”
What this video talks about is exactly that world of probability. It presents mathematics as a cold, fair mirror to those who give up on “success” as a matter of talent—that is the nature of its content.
However, this article does not simply trace the contents of the video, but rather layers analysis, consideration, and insight from the perspectives of psychology, neuroscience, physics, and history, delving into the depths of the truth that “the number of at-bats determines your life.”
- Key Points of the Video: Probability as a “Universal Law”
- [Analysis] Why Humans Cannot “Intuit” Probability
- [Consideration] “Geniuses are Prolific” — The Law of the Number of At-Bats Proven by History
- [Insight 1] Continuation is Not “Willpower” but a “Mathematical Inevitability”
- [Insight 2] The World of Power-Law Distribution — The Explosive Power Residing in a “Small Dot”
- Quotes from the Video and Deep Dives
- [Insight 3] The True Meaning of “Increasing At-Bats” — Quantity Over Quality, Then Quantity to Quality
- A Supplement from Another Perspective: Elements That Cannot Be Explained by “Probability” Alone
- [Insight 4] The Perspective of Mindset Design — The Intersection of “Probability” and the “Subconscious”
- Conclusion and Next Actions
Key Points of the Video: Probability as a “Universal Law”
Summarizing the video’s arguments, they can be consolidated into the following three pillars.
- Reversal of Probability: Since there are tens of thousands of successful people, the idea that “only I can’t do it” is statistically wrong. The probability of not being able to do it is actually rarer.
- Convergence of Repeated Trials: Even with a challenge that has a 10% success rate, if you try 30 times, you will succeed at least once with a probability of over 96%. Continuation is a “success machine.”
- The World of Power-Law Distribution: The distribution of success in society is not a normal distribution but a power-law distribution (Pareto distribution), and everyone has the potential for a “small dot” to expand exponentially.
What is particularly sharp about the video is that it uses specific formulas to show the fact that human intuition is systematically wrong in the world of probability, citing examples like the “Birthday Paradox” and the “Monty Hall Problem.”
Intuition cannot be trusted. If so, we should look at numbers instead of emotions—this shift in perspective alone should dissolve the “action paralysis” of many people.
[Analysis] Why Humans Cannot “Intuit” Probability
The Brain is an “Energy-Saving Device”
The human brain is not designed for accurate probability calculations.
In his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman categorized human thinking into “System 1 (fast, intuitive)” and “System 2 (slow, logical)”. Most of our daily lives are dominated by the energy-efficient “System 1”, and “System 2”, which requires precise calculation of probabilities, will not operate unless consciously activated.
Furthermore, from an evolutionary perspective, the ability our human ancestors needed was not “calculating a 1 in 100,000 probability,” but “running away immediately from the lion right in front of them.” Our brains are still living with a design from the savanna era.
The Trap of the Availability Heuristic
In psychology, there is a concept called the “availability heuristic.” It is a cognitive bias where people mistakenly believe that “examples that easily come to mind” are “examples with high probability.”
For instance, after seeing news of an airplane crash, people become afraid of flying. However, statistically, traveling by airplane is far safer than traveling by car. Because the news oversupplies “examples that easily come to mind (airplane crashes)”, our judgment of probability becomes distorted.
Stories of “people who made their dreams come true” are less conspicuous and harder to remember than stories of failure. That is why we fall into the illusion that “successful people are rare.” But in reality, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people making a living doing what they love.
The Pessimistic Bias of “Only I Am the Exception”
One of the sharpest points the video makes is the tendency that “people become pessimistic only toward themselves.”
In psychology, this is related to the “negative self-specificity bias.” It is a positional asymmetry where other people’s dreams seem “likely to come true,” while our own dreams feel “unlikely to come true.”
Why does this happen? One reason is that we have an enormous amount of “memories of failures we have experienced” regarding ourselves, whereas for others, we can only see their observable “current success.” The basis for comparison is decisively unfair.
[Consideration] “Geniuses are Prolific” — The Law of the Number of At-Bats Proven by History
Professor Simonton’s Research: The Truth About Quantity and Quality
Professor Dean Keith Simonton, a psychologist at the University of California, Davis, analyzed the relationship between “genius” and “creativity” in his decades of research. His conclusion was shocking.
The common trait among historical geniuses was not “the number of masterpieces” but “the total number of works produced.”
- Picasso: He left behind roughly over 50,000 works (paintings, sculptures, ceramics, drawings) in his lifetime, but only a fraction of them are called “masterpieces” today.
- Edison: He held 1,093 patents. However, many of them were bizarre inventions that were never put to practical use, and masterpieces like the “phonograph” and “incandescent light bulb” existed on top of a mountain of colossal failures.
- Bach: He composed an estimated 1,000 or more pieces. He continued writing music for worship almost every week, but only a very small portion is performed in concert halls today.
- Shakespeare: He wrote 37 plays and 154 sonnets, but the works that are most frequently performed narrow down to about 10.
Professor Simonton states the following in his book “Genius, Madness, and Creativity” (Origins of Genius):
“The greatest artists, scientists, and writers are also the most prolific. Quantity is a necessary condition for producing quality.”
They did not “try to create a masterpiece from the start.” “As a result of just continuing to create, there were a few masterpieces mixed in”—that is said to be closer to reality.
Relationship with the “10,000-Hour Rule”
The “10,000-Hour Rule” popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in “Outliers”—the theory that 10,000 hours of practice are required to become a top performer in a field—ultimately says the same thing.
10,000 hours equates to about 9 years of time if you practice 3 hours every day. The “number of failures and attempts” accumulated during this period is exactly the process that “probabilistically guarantees” skill.
What’s important is that this “10,000 hours” is not “10,000 hours of successful experiences.” Much of it is failures, corrections, and clumsy attempts. “Prolific” also means “many failures”—this is the essence of “Geniuses are prolific.”
[Insight 1] Continuation is Not “Willpower” but a “Mathematical Inevitability”
One of the most powerful messages in the video is this part.
“I don’t believe in effort, but I believe in continuation.”
The word “effort” carries person-dependent nuances such as guts, perseverance, and mental strength. But “continuation” is different. Continuation is simply the process of accumulating the number of attempts, and this is not a “matter of willpower” but a “matter of probability.”
Let’s look again at the calculation shown in the video.
- Take a challenge with a 10% success rate once → Probability of success: 10%
- Take the same challenge 10 times → Probability of succeeding at least once: 65%
- Take the same challenge 20 times → Probability of succeeding at least once: 88%
- Take the same challenge 30 times → Probability of succeeding at least once: 96%
What this calculation teaches is not the mental theory that “if you don’t give up, you will eventually succeed.” It is the physical fact that “not giving up mathematically guarantees success.”
Choosing to “give up” even after knowing this is synonymous with defying mathematics. As the gambler’s fallacy shows, past failures do not affect the probability of your next success at all. The feeling that “I’ve failed 15 times already, so it’s hopeless” is nothing but a malfunction of the brain.
The Real Problem of “Not Being Able to Continue”
However, many people hit the wall of “not being able to continue.” Why is this?
According to Dr. Joe Dispenza’s neuroscientific interpretation, 95% of our behaviors are controlled by the unconscious mind (past programs). The 5% conscious will to “continue” is overwhelmed by the “95% unconscious mind that hates change”—that’s why people quit after three days.
In other words, “not being able to continue” is not a problem of willpower, but a neuroscientific problem of how to rewrite the unconscious program. To “increase your number of at-bats,” you first need to design an “environment and system that allows you to keep stepping up to the plate.”
As James Clear states in “Atomic Habits,” behavioral change starts with an “identity change.” If you adopt the identity of “someone who writes every day,” the act of writing becomes a given rather than a choice. An infrastructure for accumulating at-bats is required in your mind first.
[Insight 2] The World of Power-Law Distribution — The Explosive Power Residing in a “Small Dot”
Why the World is a “Power-Law Distribution”
The discussion on “power-law distribution” in the second half of the video was particularly interesting.
Many people intuitively believe that the relationship between effort and result is a “normal distribution”—meaning that if you make an effort, you will get a proportionate result, forming a bell-shaped distribution overall. However, actual society is composed of a “power-law distribution,” where a tiny fraction holds explosive results, and the vast majority holds results close to zero.
Wealth distribution (the top 1% holds more than half of the assets), YouTube view counts (a few videos monopolize over 90% of the views), urban population distribution (overconcentration in Tokyo)—these all follow the same mathematical law.
The mechanism by which power-law distributions emerge is “Cumulative Advantage.” Those that initially have a slight advantage become even more advantaged through a feedback loop. The rule that “the strong get stronger” creates the power-law distribution.
When Does a “Dot” Become a “Line”? — The Mystery of the Tipping Point
The video states that “any small dot has the potential to grow big,” which aligns with the concept of the “Tipping Point” described by Gladwell.
A tipping point is a turning point where a change crosses a certain threshold and begins to spread at an accelerating rate. Just as water does not boil at 99 degrees Celsius but suddenly boils at 100 degrees—a long-term accumulation begins exponential expansion past a certain moment.
The phenomenon of a YouTuber suddenly going viral after posting hundreds of videos, or a scientist suddenly discovering a breakthrough after years of research, all occur under this structure. The “unrewarded time” is not meaningless; it is the time spent accumulating energy toward the tipping point.
This also overlaps with Warren Buffett’s philosophy of compound interest. It is said that 99% of his net worth was formed after the age of 50. The “steep slope in the latter half” of the compound interest curve is the true reward of continuation.
Quotes from the Video and Deep Dives
Quote 1: “Probability is no one’s ally. It is one of the universal laws.”
These words function like an unseen salvation.
Probability works equally on those born into wealthy families and those born into poor families, those with connections and those without. It is unaffected by your morning mood or your past failures. Whether you believe it or not, numbers continue to function as numbers.
Emotions are subjective, but probability is objective. That is why the video’s suggestion that “when you can’t believe in yourself, you should believe in numbers, not emotions” acts as practical wisdom. Even if your self-esteem is low, probability works—this is an incredibly practical salvation mechanism.
Delving deeper, the concept of probability describes a “space of possibilities.” In the language of quantum mechanics, until an event happens, possibilities exist as a “wave of probability.” As long as you continue to challenge yourself, the “possibility of success” continues to exist in reality. Whether you grasp it or not depends on whether you stay within the wave.
Quote 2: “Continuation equals a success machine.”
These words seem simple at first glance, but their implications are deep.
The word “machine” implies that continuation is not a mentally consuming act of “effort” or “hard work,” but a mechanical system where output is guaranteed upon input.
On the other hand, continuation also requires “consideration for quality.” Blindly repeating the same mistakes may not increase your probability of success. What’s important is the process of “continuing while taking in feedback and making slight course corrections.”
The video also touches on this point, discussing the importance of “trying to twist your methods or attacking from a different angle.” This matches the lesson of the Monty Hall problem—flexibly pivoting increases your probability of success more than stubbornly sticking to your initially chosen path.
Quote 3: “It’s not about being chosen by God, but simply staying right here where God’s dice are rolled is what matters.”
The philosophy of the entire video is condensed in these concluding words.
Albert Einstein rejected the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, saying “God does not play dice,” but ironically, this video argues that “God continues to roll the dice—and therefore, staying in the game is the only strategy.”
A shift from the passive idea of “being chosen” to the active idea of “staying in the game.” Success is not the result of a “trait” called talent, but the result of the “acts” of action and continuation.
Epictetus said, “Distinguish between what you can control and what you cannot.” You cannot control the roll of the dice. However, whether or not you stay in the place where the dice are rolled is completely under your control. This is where the true power of these words lies.
[Insight 3] The True Meaning of “Increasing At-Bats” — Quantity Over Quality, Then Quantity to Quality
Here, I would like to pose an important question.
“Is it enough to just increase the number (quantity)?”
There is a famous experiment set in a ceramics class (from the book “Art & Fear” by David Bayles and Ted Orland).
When the ceramics class was divided into a “quantity group” (making as many pieces as possible) and a “quality group” (making just one perfect piece), it was the “quantity group” that produced the highest quality pieces at the end of the term. Through making a massive number of pieces, their skills were naturally refined, and corrections learned from failures accumulated.
“Quantity over quality” is the entry point to the cycle where “accumulating quantity creates quality.” By continuing to step up to the plate, your swing gets refined. Quantity is a prerequisite for quality.
“Perfectionism” as the Greatest At-Bat Avoidance Mechanism
One of the biggest reasons why many people cannot increase their number of at-bats is “perfectionism.”
“I’m not ready yet,” “After I study more,” “The environment isn’t set up right now”—these thoughts are unconscious self-defense mechanisms meant to keep postponing stepping up to the plate.
The essence of perfectionism is a protective strategy that says, “If it’s not perfect, I won’t get hurt.” If you don’t step up to the plate, your batting average won’t be zero. If you don’t fail, you won’t get hurt—but at the same time, you will never succeed.
Between being “in preparation” and “in the midst of a challenge,” which one is probabilistically closer to success? The answer is obvious. Those who keep stepping up to the plate in an imperfect state will ultimately conquer probability.
A Supplement from Another Perspective: Elements That Cannot Be Explained by “Probability” Alone
While I empathize with the video’s argument, there are points that need to be supplemented from a critical perspective.
The Reality of “Environmental and Structural Constraints”
What is often overlooked when talking about probability theory is the “difference in initial conditions.”
Economic disparities, educational disparities, geographic disparities—these limit the very number of times one can step up to the plate. A child from a wealthy family has the capital to recover even if they fail, but for a child from a family that isn’t, a single failure might strip them of their next at-bat.
The video’s logic is based on the premise that “anyone can succeed as long as they can accumulate at-bats,” but there is also the structural problem that “the very opportunities to accumulate at-bats are unequally distributed.” We must be careful about attributing this solely to an individual’s “matter of willpower.”
Even So, “Probabilistic Thinking” is a Powerful Weapon
However, even considering these constraints, the value of adopting “probabilistic thinking” remains unchanged.
This is because to choose the “best possible move” within your constraints, you first need to know the “structure of probability.” Having the eyes to find “where there is room to increase at-bats” within the environment you are placed in—that is the true value of probabilistic thinking.
The lesson of Simpson’s Paradox shown in the video is exactly this. Finding a subset where you can win, rather than judging by the overall distribution—this is a “strategic at-bat selection” based on probabilistic thinking.
[Insight 4] The Perspective of Mindset Design — The Intersection of “Probability” and the “Subconscious”
The core theme of this site, the “95% unconscious,” and “probability theory” are actually connected on a deep level.
The greatest enemy to “increasing at-bats” is not the external environment, but the internal “autopilot mode (the 95% unconscious).” The unconscious conclusion of “it’s impossible anyway,” generated from past memories of failure, stands in the way before you can take action.
On the other hand, “probabilistic thinking” is an attempt to overwrite this unconscious “emotional judgment system” with a conscious “mathematical judgment system.”
“I can’t believe in myself. But I can believe in probability.”
This is a practical strategy for the “5% conscious” to counter the “95% unconscious.” It bypasses the difficulty of emotional self-persuasion using a mathematical framework.
By repeatedly adopting probabilistic thinking—that is, by repeating the thought pattern of “I can act if I look at the numbers”—it writes itself into the subconscious as a new unconscious program.
Continuous “action of believing in probability” eventually transforms into an “unconscious belief in oneself”—this is the intersection between this video and the destination this site aims for.
Conclusion and Next Actions
After a long consideration, if I were to express the truth conveyed by this video in a single phrase, it would be this.
“Success is not a matter of talent, but a matter of the number of at-bats. And continuing to step up to the plate is the strongest strategy mathematically guaranteed by probability.”
Geniuses were prolific. Edison piled up “10,000 failures,” Picasso continued to create over 50,000 pieces, and Bach continued to compose every week. They did not wait for perfection. They simply kept stepping up to the plate.
I propose three specific next actions that we can practice in our daily lives.
1. Step up to the plate once today in an “imperfect state”
Stop waiting for perfect preparation. “Because I’m still bad at it,” “After I study a little more”—that procrastination continues to rob you of probabilities. You don’t have to be fully prepared today. Just step up to the plate once.
Publish a blog draft. Let someone listen to an unfinished song. Formulate an idea and send it. No matter how small the action is, it adds to your number of at-bats.
2. Build the habit of “probabilistically reinterpreting” failure
The next time you fail, try muttering this to yourself:
“This is an expected probabilistic event. The probability of my next success hasn’t changed; rather, it’s accumulating.”
By continuing this, your emotional reaction to failure will fade, and the hurdle to your “next at-bat” will lower. Processing failure not as an “emotional wound” but as a “process of probability” becomes the fuel for continuation.
3. Search for a “subset where you can win”
As the lesson of Simpson’s Paradox shown in the video teaches, let go of the assumption that you “have to fight in the overall whole.” There is definitely a domain, an angle, a field where you can win.
If your current environment doesn’t fit, change the environment. If your current method doesn’t fit, change the angle. Choosing your battlefield is also one of the actions you take while continuing to step up to the plate. Monty Hall doubled his probability by re-selecting a door. You, too, can re-select a door at any time.
“Staying in the place where God’s dice are rolled”—that is all you need to do.
As long as you keep challenging yourself, probability is your ally. Mathematics does not lie. And the universe might just be made of probabilities that work in your favor.
Keep stepping up to the plate. That is the only mathematically proven “path to self-actualization.”
Comment