So I came across this very interesting paper that talks about failure and success. It looked at multiple failed attempts and tried to see what is the difference between the people who eventually succeeded, and those who remained unsuccessful. And the key takeaways that I find most interesting are these:

1. Whether multiple attempts eventually become a success or remain a failure, is not due to chance. This means that you can't just simply increase the number of attempts in the hope that you increase the probability of success. More attempts do not automatically improve your chance. This means that making 300 job applications probably won't be any different to making 20 applications, if you keep doing it the same way. What you need to incorporate in your next attempts is learning.

2a. If learning is so crucial in our iteration, in our next attempts, then how do we learn? We learn by getting feedback and applying that feedback in different components in our effort. For example, if your goal is to win an innovation competition, the following components are tied to it: the team, the idea, the presentation, the feasibility, and so on.

So, imagine: you fail at this one competition. You get the feedback. They say the numbers you presented are not realistic. You also observe that your team is not gelling and the dynamic hurts the working relationship. So the next time you join a similar competition, you need to make sure that you incorporate the feedback in those flawed components, which means, you watch out for the team and the realism of the business case.

2b. Another thing that you need to consider besides "fixing what's wrong" is holding on to what's right, or reusing what already worked. This way you don't start from scratch everytime you make another attempt--you just improve it. The other group, the remain-failed group, will discard what's right and keep starting over.

3. Eventually, the difference between the successful group and the unsuccessful group is the ability to learn. One group progresses over time, the other stagnates.

You started at 60? Okay, fine. But then you improve it, for example, you get to 70. Then 75. Then 85. Then maybe eventually you'll achieve it.

The other group, also started at 60. But then they don't really improve. 65... 67... 65... Oof.

---

So what does it all mean? Additional lessons can be derived from the takeaways we have discussed earlier.

First, if you have tried, and you have failed, you are at a much, much, much better position than those who have not tried, because of the experience and the feedback advantage. You know what to improve, and you know what worked.

Second, if learning is that important for our next attempts, then what happens when each attempt does not give you any feedback? (For example, the competition did not provide any feedback.) Well, it would be hard to learn. Thus, it would be hard to improve. If there is no improvement, you can't get closer to the goal.

Therefore, logically thinking, if this is the reality you're in (you're not getting any feedback and/or you can't improve) then there is no point in going further in this attempt. Cut the losses. Because you know, this is not going anywhere.

---

If you're interested to know more about this research, here's the original paper. I tried to read the paper but the statistics are lost on me. So I read instead the summarized versions in the media written by someone or by the author themselves.