The Dichotomy of Control: What Is Up to Us, and What Isn’t

The text

The Enchiridion, or Handbook, is a short summary of Epictetus’s teaching compiled by his student Arrian in the second century. It opens without preamble. In George Long’s nineteenth century translation:

“Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement towards a thing, desire, aversion (turning from a thing); and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices (magisterial power), and in a word, whatever are not our own acts.”

Epictetus then adds what follows from this. The things in our power are by nature free, unrestrained and unhindered. The things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint and belong to others. If you think that what belongs to others is your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed and you will blame gods and men. If you think only what is yours is your own, no one will ever compel you or hinder you.

That is the whole idea in four sentences. The rest of Stoic ethics can be read as a commentary on it.

What is actually “up to us”

The list is shorter than people expect. In the strict Stoic sense, what is up to us is our use of impressions: how we judge what happens, what we choose to do about it, what we desire and what we try to avoid. Epictetus calls this the prohairesis, often translated as “choice” or “moral purpose”. It is the faculty that decides.

Everything else falls on the other side, including things we usually think of as ours. Your body can fall ill. Your money can be lost. Your reputation lives in other people’s heads. Your job can be taken away. Even your life, Epictetus says, is on loan.

This is where the idea feels harsh at first. Surely my health is partly up to me? Surely my career depends on my effort? The Stoic answer is precise. Your actions toward your health are up to you: what you eat, whether you exercise, whether you see a doctor. Your health itself is not, because it also depends on genes, accidents and luck. The same for your career. Your work, your preparation and your conduct are yours. The promotion is not.

Why this matters

The dichotomy of control does three things for anyone who takes it seriously.

It locates worry. Most anxiety is about things on the second list: what people will think, whether it will work out, what might happen. Seeing that clearly does not make the worry vanish, but it shows that worrying is not a form of action. Once you have done what is in your power, more worry adds nothing.

It locates effort. The same separation tells you where to put your energy. If the result of a job interview is not up to you, your preparation is. Every hour spent imagining the decision of the panel is an hour not spent on the part you control.

It locates your worth. This is the deepest point. If your sense of being a good person depends on outcomes, you are at the mercy of the world. If it depends on how you act, no one can take it from you. Epictetus, who had been a slave and was later exiled, knew what he was saying.

What it does not mean

Because the idea is so simple, it is easy to misuse. Three misreadings are common.

“Don’t care about outcomes.” The Stoics cared about outcomes in the sense that they acted to achieve good ones. Marcus Aurelius fought wars and passed laws. The point is not indifference but where you place your peace. You can want your project to succeed and do everything to make it succeed while knowing that success is not fully yours to give.

“Accept everything.” Accepting that something has happened is different from accepting that it should continue. The dichotomy of control applies to what is happening now and has already happened. Your response, which is fully up to you, may well be to fight it. Our article on why acceptance is not resignation goes into this.

“Other people are not my problem.” Other people’s choices are not in your power. Your treatment of them is. The Stoics drew the opposite conclusion from the selfish one: since your own conduct is the only thing truly yours, it matters enormously how you treat others.

The mixed cases

Most of daily life is not cleanly on one side or the other. A conversation with your teenager, a negotiation with a client, a medical treatment: all involve your choices and things outside them. The skill is not deciding which category the whole situation belongs to. It is splitting it.

A simple way to do this is to ask three questions:

1. What is the part that depends only on me? My preparation, my tone, my honesty, my effort, my response to what happens.
2. What is the part that does not? Their decision, the result, the timing, the weather.
3. What would I do differently if I really accepted the split? Usually: work harder on the first part and spend less time rehearsing the second.

The Stoics had an image for this, the archer. Cicero, reporting the Stoic view, describes an archer who does everything to hit the target. Hitting it is something to be chosen, he says, but not something to be desired as the final good. The archer’s excellence is in aiming well. We look at it in more detail in the Stoic archer.

The circle of control and the trichotomy

Two modern versions of the idea are worth knowing.

The first is the circle of control, popularized in management and therapy. In Stephen Covey’s 1989 book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, it appears as the Circle of Concern and the Circle of Influence: proactive people focus their energy on what they can influence, and that circle grows. It is a modern, practical restatement of the Stoic idea, with one difference that matters. Covey’s version is about effectiveness. Epictetus’s is about freedom. We compare them in circle of control vs circle of influence.

The second is the trichotomy of control, proposed by the philosopher William Irvine in his book A Guide to the Good Life (2009). Irvine argued that many things are neither fully in our control nor fully outside it, such as winning a tennis match, and suggested a third category for them, in which we should set internal goals (playing as well as we can) rather than external ones (winning). The idea is helpful in practice. Critics point out that it is not strictly necessary, since the original dichotomy already handles mixed cases by splitting them, and that it blurs Epictetus’s sharp line. There is more on this in the trichotomy of control.

How to use it day to day

The dichotomy of control is best practiced in small moments, before it is needed in large ones.

• When you start worrying, ask which side of the line the worry is on. If it is about something not in your power, ask what, if anything, you can do about it now. Do that, and then let the rest go as many times as it returns.
• Before an important event, write two short lists: what depends on me, what does not. Put your preparation into the first list.
• After a disappointment, separate your conduct from the result. Did I do my part well? If yes, the result does not change that. If no, that is what to learn from.
• When someone behaves badly, remember that their behavior is not in your power and your response is. That is not a reason to tolerate it. It is a reason to choose your response rather than have it chosen for you.

There is more on the most common use, worry, in how to stop worrying about things you can’t control.