Trichotomy of control??
Hey everyone, I’m new to Stoicism and recently started reading about the trichotomy of control. It makes sense to me at first glance, but I’ve also seen people say it’s not truly Stoic. I thought the idea of splitting things into what we can control, what we can’t, and what we influence was helpful. But is this actually against Stoic philosophy? Should I be thinking in terms of a dichotomy instead?
Hey, welcome to the forum! It’s great that you’re thinking critically about these ideas. The trichotomy of control is something modern Stoics (like William B. Irvine) have popularized, but traditionally, Stoicism is based on a dichotomy: things in our control and things outside our control. The ‘influence’ category adds a middle ground that many argue isn’t necessary and even contradicts core Stoic thinking. That said, if it helps you personally, it might still be a useful mental model!
William B. Irvine is one of the worst modern adapters of Stoicism. His version feels watered down, and the whole ‘trichotomy of control’ thing completely misses the mark. It’s like he took Stoicism and turned it into self-help with a Stoic flavor. Just my opinion
Hey everyone, I’m also new to Stoicism, so forgive me if I misunderstand something! I’ve been thinking about the trichotomy of control, and to me, it seems like a helpful way to break things down. I get that classical Stoicism focuses on a strict dichotomy—things we can and can’t control—but isn’t it useful to recognize that some things are partially within our control?
For example, I can’t fully control whether I get a job after an interview, but I can prepare well and make a good impression. That’s where I thought the ‘influence’ category made sense. Wouldn’t acknowledging this middle ground help us focus on doing our best without stressing about the outcome
Quote from Ocean on February 5, 2025, 1:34 pmHey everyone, I’m also new to Stoicism, so forgive me if I misunderstand something! I’ve been thinking about the trichotomy of control, and to me, it seems like a helpful way to break things down. I get that classical Stoicism focuses on a strict dichotomy—things we can and can’t control—but isn’t it useful to recognize that some things are partially within our control?
For example, I can’t fully control whether I get a job after an interview, but I can prepare well and make a good impression. That’s where I thought the ‘influence’ category made sense. Wouldn’t acknowledging this middle ground help us focus on doing our best without stressing about the outcome
In my opinion, there is no real middle ground when it comes to control—only a misunderstanding of how we analyze a situation. The trichotomy of control creates an unnecessary ‘gray zone’ that isn’t actually there.
Take your job interview example: You don’t partially control the outcome—you simply don’t control it at all. The decision is entirely up to the employer. What you do control is your preparation, your effort, and how you present yourself. That’s it.
The key Stoic lesson is to focus only on what is truly yours—your thoughts, actions, and judgments. Whether you get the job or not is irrelevant from a Stoic perspective because a job and an income are ‘indifferents’—neither good nor bad in themselves. What matters is how you handle the process. If you prepare well and act virtuously, then you’ve already succeeded, regardless of the outcome.
I think the whole debate about the trichotomy vs. dichotomy of control comes down to how we frame situations. Instead of asking, “Is this something I control, don’t control, or influence?” it might be more useful to ask, “What part of this situation is fully mine to manage?”
Take the job interview example: You don’t control the hiring decision, but you do control your preparation, mindset, and effort. Rather than debating an extra category of ‘influence,’ a Stoic approach might be to shift focus entirely to what’s yours—and let the rest go.
It’s less about slicing control into categories and more about where we place our attention.