The Blog

The Technique Nobody Wants

There is a Stoic practice that sounds, on first hearing, like a recipe for anxiety. The instruction is to think about what could go wrong. Not briefly, not as a precaution, but deliberately and in some detail. To imagine losing the things you value, the people you love, the work you have built, the health you currently have.

Most people’s instinct is to do the opposite. To focus on what they want rather than what they fear, to project confidence rather than doubt, to visualise success rather than failure. The positive thinking industry, which is large and profitable, is built on exactly this instinct.

The Stoics thought that instinct was mistaken. Not because pessimism is more accurate than optimism, but because avoiding the thought of what could go wrong does not protect you from it. It simply ensures that when it arrives, you are unprepared.

What Premeditatio Malorum Actually Is

The Latin phrase premeditatio malorum translates as the premeditation of evils, or more plainly, thinking through bad outcomes in advance. It was a deliberate daily practice for the Stoics, not an occasional exercise in caution but a regular discipline of imagining adversity before it occurs.

Marcus Aurelius practised it. At the start of each day he would prepare himself mentally for the difficulties he expected to encounter, the difficult people, the frustrating situations, the things that would not go as planned. He was not catastrophising. He was rehearsing.

Seneca described the practice in his letters with characteristic directness. He wrote about setting aside time to think through the worst that could happen, to sit with that possibility until it no longer had the power to shock or paralyse, and then to consider how he would respond to it. The goal was not to predict the future but to reduce the fear of it.

The Misunderstanding

Premeditatio malorum is widely misunderstood, and the misunderstanding usually goes in one of two directions.

The first is to mistake it for pessimism. The assumption that a man who thinks regularly about what could go wrong is someone who expects things to go wrong, who lacks confidence, who has given up on the possibility of good outcomes. This misses the point entirely. The Stoics were not pessimists. They acted with purpose and sustained effort. What they were doing was ensuring that their confidence was not fragile, not dependent on things going according to plan.

The second misunderstanding is to treat it as a risk management tool, a kind of mental contingency planning. This is closer to the truth but still misses the deeper purpose. Risk management is about reducing the likelihood of bad outcomes. Premeditatio malorum is about reducing the power those outcomes have over you, regardless of whether they occur.

These are different objectives. And the Stoic one is more radical.

What Fear Actually Costs

The Stoics were clear eyed about what unexamined fear produces. It narrows your choices. It makes you conservative in ways that have nothing to do with wisdom. It causes you to avoid the things you most want to do because the possibility of failure or loss feels unbearable.

A man who has not thought about failure is, in the Stoic view, not protected from it by his optimism. He is simply carrying the full weight of the fear unconsciously. It shows up as hesitation, as avoidance, as the low level anxiety of someone who has a lot to lose and has decided not to think about that fact too carefully.

Seneca was direct about this. He wrote that we suffer more in imagination than in reality. The catastrophe we have not examined grows in the mind, fed by avoidance, until it occupies far more psychological space than the actual event would warrant. The practice of sitting with the worst case, of looking at it steadily until it is simply a possibility rather than a lurking threat, removes that inflation.

The Rehearsal

What premeditatio malorum produces, when practised properly, is something close to what actors and musicians achieve through rehearsal. Not certainty about how things will go, but familiarity with the territory. The experienced performer is not unafraid of the performance. They have simply visited the possibility of failure often enough that it no longer ambushes them.

Marcus Aurelius, governing an empire through wars, plagues, and political instability, returned constantly in Meditations to the practice of anticipating difficulty. Not with dread but with a kind of steady preparation. He had already thought about what it would mean to lose the things he valued. He had already asked himself whether his sense of himself depended on circumstances remaining stable. The answer, worked out in advance, gave him something to stand on when circumstances did not cooperate.

This is the practical function of the practice. Not prediction, not pessimism, but the building of a position that does not collapse when things go wrong.

What Remains When You Remove the Fear

There is something that happens when you have genuinely sat with the worst case, turned it over, and decided how you would meet it.

The fear does not disappear entirely. That would be too simple, and the Stoics were not promising simplicity. What changes is the relationship between the fear and your choices. A man who has faced the possibility of failure honestly, who has asked what it would actually mean and what he would actually do, finds that the fear has less authority over him. It is present but it is not governing.

This creates a freedom that optimism cannot provide, because optimism is always dependent on things going well. The freedom the Stoics were after was independent of outcomes. A man who has prepared for adversity is not less committed to success. He is simply not hostage to it.

Seneca put it plainly. The man who has rehearsed the worst is rarely devastated by it when it arrives, because it arrives into a mind that has already made room for it. And when the worst does not arrive, which is most of the time, nothing has been lost. The rehearsal costs nothing.

The Daily Practice

Premeditatio malorum does not require long sessions of gloomy contemplation. The Stoics practised it in minutes, not hours. A brief, honest consideration of what the day might bring that is difficult. A moment of thinking about the people and things you value and acknowledging that they are not permanent. A quiet recognition that the plans you have made may not unfold as planned.

None of this is morbid. It is simply honest. And honesty about the fragility of things, practised regularly, produces a man who is less surprised by life and better equipped to meet it as it actually is rather than as he hoped it would be.

That is not a small thing. It may be one of the most useful things the Stoics left us.

The technique nobody wants is, in the end, the one that works.