I just got a good email from a friend about emotions and biochemistry. It got me thinking.
Envy and schadenfreude are common emotions. People like seeing their opponents fail.
Is it possible to get over that? Would it be desirable to get over that?
I think envy and schadenfreude and hatred are usually a detriment to people feeling them. This is obvious enough when you're playing a positive sum game - because Positive Sum Games Don't Require Natural Talent, and have a near infinite opportunity for success. Disciplines like inventing, engineering, finance, entrepreneurship, mathematics, and the natural sciences work hand in hand. Every win by an inventor opens lots of doors for engineering, finance, entrepreneurship, math, and science. And indeed, for other inventors.
A lot of people mistake positive sum games - like the economy at large - for a zero sum game. They think that if you get money, they'll get less money. Of course, it doesn't work like that, as our exponentially growing standard of living shows. Even if someone loses a local conflict (to gain market share in a new technology, for instance) they can still go on to invent and innovate in a new field.
Take Justin Kan from Justin.tv. His first startup was called "Kiko" and it was an online calendar. Google comes out with Google Calendar, which really put a hurting on Kiko, and Justin and team had a firesale of the remains of Kiko following Google duplicating their effort.
Sucks, right? Well, maybe not. Because of that, he goes on to found Justin.tv which looks really promising. Even losing a local conflict (Google eating your lunch in online calendars) can be positive-sum if the person whose lunch was eaten goes on to do bigger and better things.
But what about true zero sum games, like sports?
I got seriously interested in sports when I lived in Boston, so my primary teams were Red Sox/Patriots/Celtics. Now, if you don't understand the American sports scene, take my word for this - Boston fans were expected to hate the New York Yankees in baseball, Indianapolis Colts in football, and Los Angeles Lakers in basketball, due to long standing rivalries.
But after some thinking about it, I decided that wasn't the best way to go. "Intelligent people who like baseball and statistics" is a very small subset of people. Why curse and alienate intelligent Yankee fans? Wouldn't it be possible to root for likable Yankees, and to hope for exciting, crisp baseball games between the two teams, and a general increase in popularity of the sport, especially among people who like statistics?
As a Boston fan, you were expected to dislike the top players of the rival team - Alex Rodriguez, Peyton Manning, and Kobe Bryant.
But I think, man, sports fans (and especially sports fans really into advanced statistical analysis) are somewhat rare. Why antagonize them? Alex Rodriguez is a hell of a hitter, it's a pleasure to watch him hit.
Peyton Manning has some of the best vision for small things of anyone in any sport ever. He'll see a small twitch in the opposing defense, and "audible" - change the play at the last minute. It's fine to watch him with some awe, thinking what the heck did he see?
And it's cool to admire Kobe Bryant's massive work ethic, and his skills and fluidity playing basketball. Seriously, he's more graceful playing basketball than most figure skaters are. The guy is a joy of an athlete to watch.
I think looking for things to like, respect, connect with - even if you're playing a zero sum game - goes a long way. Instead of rooting for Peyton Manning to throw an interception, you start trying to figure out what he sees that causes him to audible... this is something most Patriots fan are blind to, because they hate the guy. They don't want to give him appreciate his skills, so they blind themselves to things they could learn about.
In the end, I think most sports fans would do well to root for exciting, quality games in their sport, and the sport growing in popularity. The more popular it gets, the more quality teams, clubs, and players will come into the sport. The more international competitions there will be in the sport. The more good games you'll see.
Could you root for your competition in business? I think to some extent, yes. Sure, give an all-out effort to win that market share. But also root for them to pivot and make massive dollars in (ideally) an unrelated field. Or to break new ground and new markets so you both prosper.
And this sort of goodwill means that if the company does fail, you can recruit some of their team on good footing.
This goes against human nature. We want enemies, and we want to root for our enemies to fail. This has been hard for me to adopt, and I'm still working at it. Maybe it's because I started reading the various war plans of historical communist leaders recently, like Lenin and Mao. I really dislike communism, but being open-minded enough to study "What Is To Be Done?" and "On Guerrilla Warfare" is increasing my knowledge of history and how thinks happen, and making me a better strategist.
Of course, there are no enemies in death. But maybe this same principle can be applied in life - yes, you can root for the Red Sox to win 110 games, and the Yankees to win 109, the sport to grow in popularity, and for an exciting championship series between the two teams. And if the Yankees win 110 and the Red Sox win less, well, you can still appreciate their quality pitching and hitting, and again root for the sport overall to grow in popularity.
This is admittedly hard to do. But I think it's good. It's not always possible, but I think it's healthy to start to want everyone to win.
> A lot of people mistake positive sum games – like the economy at large – for a zero sum game. They think that if you get money, they’ll get less money.
It's worth mentioning that because money can bring status and status is zero-sum (at least in some situations), people aren't completely wrong in perceiving that another's financial gain as their loss. It's still an awful mindset though.
There's terms for the two mentalities you've described: abundance mentality and scarcity mentality.
This is exactly a little something I need to find more information about, appreciation for the publish.
Do you think that part of the reason that people get this mindset is because they're trying to compete on the same turf? Where should we position ourselves then?
To clarify the thinking behind the second question, consider the extremes in business. Many small retailers fight for a lot at a popular mall, and many big companies fight over mind-share in the "next big trend" (social media, search, group buying, social games, etc, etc).
Would the middle ground be the sweet spot then? Or does it simply make it easier to adopt the right mindset; where competition is neither too stiff, nor too intimate.
I guess to the baseball player, theirs really is a zero sum game. But to the spectator, definitely not so, as you have rightly pointed out. I think we should learn to be spectators a little more often, especially towards ourselves.
You want everyone to *win*? What exactly does that mean? Does winning (just) mean money, success? But what exactly is 'success'? It depends on the context, on the goals, on the game, on the people, I suppose... but... how can one always know what is winning and what losing is in a certain situation? Sometimes losing is winning, or loss results in other kinds of gains, like something new learned, or experienced. One can win so many things, in so many ways, and often one doesn't know until later. How can one direct oneself or others to a winning path? How to even define a winning path? Ah, I'm repeating myself... but there are so many things to doubt, so much uncertainty...
What a wonderful mindset to have.
> Even losing a local conflict (Google eating your lunch in online calendars) can be positive-sum if the person whose lunch was eaten goes on to do bigger and better things.
Moreso, it's a bigger and better opportunity that opened up by closing that one. In other words, he was able to put more focus into Justin.tv as a direct result of closing the Kiko door. He may not have had the sufficient attention to give to Justin.tv had he been implementing these two projects in parallel.
Statistically, people don't often succeed immediately after being defeated. So you can't count on your next thing being the one that wins. But even in these cases, you can still take with you the experience, practice, and new skills you built by producing the "failures." So even in your losses, you win, albeit a little indirectly.
That said, in the scope of an inventor (and possibly generalized to all positive-sum games requiring experience/knowledge):
Your wins allow others to win.
Your losses further allow you to win.
It just dawned on me - there's the "you can do anything, be anything, have anything" crowd - and obviously, that's not literally true. Could anyone play professional golf and win the Masters and perform as first chair violin at a prestigious symphony? Nah, probably not.
But I always think to myself, "I can do anything except the things I can't do yet, and I could learn those and do them if I want to." Most successful people I know think the same way.
Trying to reconcile that, I start thinking: You might need natural talent to win at a zero-sum game, or if you're competing for limited pieces of pie.
But you don't need natural talent for positive sum games. Positive sum games make multiple winners and expand the pie more than what the person eats.
NBA? On the court, it's a zero sum game. Every "W" in the win column comes at the expense of putting an "L" in another team's loss column. There's 5 starters, and if you want to start, you've got to take someone else's spot when they retire or get sent to the bench. Then there's a few more rotation spots, and a few more non-rotation bench spots. And that's pretty much it.
Last season, I was bored one day and decided I would start following an MLB team. After spending a few hours online and eliminating teams, I settled on the Boston Red Sox. They ended up finishing 69-93, their worst record since 1965. Drama encompassed the season, leading to the firing of manager Bobby Valentine right after the end. A significant portion of the team was loaded off close to the end of the season in order to create a new imagine of the team.
Now, I completely admit that I am more of an "artificial" fan, but that won't stop me from supporting them this upcoming season. As the 2013 season is about to begin, it's about time I give a little preview of what to expect for the Red Sox. I know there has already been a few games played, but screw it.
Last season, the Red Sox had a 5.19 ERA, good for fourth worst in the league. The introduction of manager John Farrell (former Toronto Blue Jays manger) shows a sign to help the Red Sox become a better pitching team. Farrell used to be the pitching coach of the Red Sox under Terry Francona and is hence familiar with the organization. Ryan Dempster from the Texas Rangers will be the only new face in the starting rotation that also consists of Clay Buchholz, Felix Doubront, John Lackey, and "ace" Jon Lester.