"A handkerchief can never be put in another pocket after it has been in one pocket. I don't walk under ladders. I have items of clothing that are lucky for me. That rotates, but I am luck-oriented"
About this Quote
Rationalists love to pretend they’ve outgrown superstition; Maddow quietly admits the opposite, then makes it sound like a systems preference instead of a confession. The handkerchief rule is almost comically domestic, the kind of private protocol you’d never legislate for anyone else. That’s the point. It frames “luck” not as mysticism but as order: a small, controllable ritual that keeps the world from feeling arbitrary. In a profession built on contingency (breaking news, live TV, the ever-present possibility of being wrong in public), a pocket becomes a boundary, a ladder becomes a threat, a “lucky” shirt becomes an anchor.
The subtext is less “I believe in magic” than “I respect uncertainty.” Maddow’s list of habits reads like a newsroom version of athletes’ pregame routines: not proof of irrationality, but a coping mechanism for high-stakes performance. The rotating lucky clothes is especially telling. It’s superstition with a self-correcting algorithm, an admission that she knows it’s silly even as she refuses to relinquish it. She’s managing the emotional economy of risk.
Contextually, coming from a journalist known for meticulous argumentation and evidentiary pressure, the line lands as disarming self-portrait. It punctures the myth of the purely logical pundit and replaces it with something more believable: a person who can parse data all night and still want a tiny, tactile veto over chaos. The wit is in the specificity; the honesty is in refusing to pretend that specificity doesn’t matter.
The subtext is less “I believe in magic” than “I respect uncertainty.” Maddow’s list of habits reads like a newsroom version of athletes’ pregame routines: not proof of irrationality, but a coping mechanism for high-stakes performance. The rotating lucky clothes is especially telling. It’s superstition with a self-correcting algorithm, an admission that she knows it’s silly even as she refuses to relinquish it. She’s managing the emotional economy of risk.
Contextually, coming from a journalist known for meticulous argumentation and evidentiary pressure, the line lands as disarming self-portrait. It punctures the myth of the purely logical pundit and replaces it with something more believable: a person who can parse data all night and still want a tiny, tactile veto over chaos. The wit is in the specificity; the honesty is in refusing to pretend that specificity doesn’t matter.
Quote Details
| Topic | Free Will & Fate |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Rachel
Add to List





