Author Topic: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"  (Read 11267 times)

Gerard

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
  • Location: eastern canada
    • Optimacheap
Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« on: February 22, 2014, 10:09:54 AM »
Just watching Finland destroy the US at Olympic hockey, and one of the announcers is attributing it to the North American tendency to not play bronze-medal type games -- generally, once your team is out of the playoffs, you go off golfing or whatever. So the US players are having trouble getting up for the game.

Got me thinking how our culture tends to under-value being pretty good, rather than the best. In real life, "pretty good" will actually get you all the way to awesome pretty quickly, if you do it right. I don't need to produce prize-winning bread -- I just need/want my bread to be as good as or better than the local bakery. And so on across the board in my life.

I'm not sure I have a clear point here, or where I think the discussion on this could go. I just wanted to point out how easy it is to be awesome if you set your goals right.

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3497
  • Location: At the Barn
  • That old chestnut.
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2014, 10:17:52 AM »
If you ain't first, you're last.  Shake n' bake!


wtjbatman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Missouri
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2014, 10:56:05 AM »
"Gerard", that sounds french or something. Are you french? Americans play to win, or GTFO. Bronze is just the second loser.

zachd

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2014, 11:05:19 AM »

What if you just said, "I love really thin pancakes"?

phred

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2014, 11:28:46 AM »
If you're not the best at anything, but pretty good at several things - especially if they're somewhat related - you will get further faster than most anyone around you

Hedge_87

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
  • Age: 34
  • Location: South central ks
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2014, 11:31:55 AM »

What if you just said, "I love really thin pancakes"?
nope go ahead and break it

tariskat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2014, 12:01:32 PM »
That's a fairly Jacob / ERE thought process, I think.  I would like to be very good at a lot of things, even though I am pursuing a higher ed / specialized degree.

Hedge_87

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
  • Age: 34
  • Location: South central ks
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2014, 12:27:12 PM »
I think it is also a way of "hedging your bets"or saving grace if you lose. Now we can say "well we didn't play up to our potential because it was just for third place." The ESPN/SEC commentators did the same thing this year for the sugar bowl (alabama vs. Oklahoma). During the pre game all they could talk about was how disappointing it must be for Alabama to only be playing in the sugar bowl. Also how hard it must be to get excited to play in just a measly old sugar bowl instead of a national championship. This way when Oklahoma kicks the holy dog shit out of them they can say "well we didn't even try its just a sugar bowl". That way they can come off a loss and still be able to be ranked  #1 IN THE NATION.

Baylor3217

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2014, 01:30:48 PM »
I think it is also a way of "hedging your bets"or saving grace if you lose. Now we can say "well we didn't play up to our potential because it was just for third place." The ESPN/SEC commentators did the same thing this year for the sugar bowl (alabama vs. Oklahoma). During the pre game all they could talk about was how disappointing it must be for Alabama to only be playing in the sugar bowl. Also how hard it must be to get excited to play in just a measly old sugar bowl instead of a national championship. This way when Oklahoma kicks the holy dog shit out of them they can say "well we didn't even try its just a sugar bowl". That way they can come off a loss and still be able to be ranked  #1 IN THE NATION.

Sounds like a big 12 fan.  I like.

To the OP, totally agree.  Of course one should always try to win it all.  However, sometimes the risk of trying to achieve that is such that some people can lose more than they stand to gain if not careful.

You really just have to be a little bit better than most others to be extremely successful in life.  Fortunately, the American attitude of abject laziness that is starting to reign the day and hoping that the govt will chip in another couple of % only makes it that much easier for those of us that are willing to work a bit harder than your neighbor.  As long as those not willing to work or willing to accept the govt determining their lifestyle level don't bring the system down, life will continue to be very very good.

Here's to working harder than the rest!

HappierAtHome

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8032
  • Location: Australia
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2014, 04:03:54 PM »
This reminds me of the MMM article about kicking the ass of the 95%. Turns out it's relatively easy to be in the top 5% in many areas of life.

I wonder how many people have lost the ability to enjoy a pursuit for its own sake rather than having to be the best at it. I see the attitude of "be the best or just give up" in myself sometimes and I really don't like it.

soccerluvof4

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6966
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2014, 04:08:36 PM »
No one remembers second place! If your not first your last! heard em all growing up. I say just strive to do the best you can and enjoy doing it!

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28503
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2014, 05:45:03 PM »
It's a clear example of a fixed mindset, rather than a growth mindset, for those of you that have read Mindset by Carol Dweck.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2014, 09:33:45 AM »
I've always been a Jack of all trades, and it suits my personality.  I would much rather be in the top 10% of a whole host of things than in the top 1% of one or two things.  I've also found that one does not have to spend a whole lot of time doing something to get in that top 10% because most people specialize, they aren't Jacks of all trades.  I'll give an example using sports, since I tend to be athletic (well, maybe not as much as I used to be!).  I golf in the low 80s. I can bowl above 150 consistently. I can throw darts and shoot pool better than my friends. Etc. Etc.  The thing is, I don't golf regularly any more, haven't bowled a league in 20 years, and only rarely throw darts or shoot pool.

The thing that sets me apart is I took lessons or just practiced in all of these things, and in the case of darts and pool only a few lessons were needed to set me well above the average guy who had never had a good lesson.  That and some hours of practice and I am better than most folks at these hobbies.  Put me in a dart or a pool league where the top 1% hang out and I'll get crushed but that's OK, because I am not striving to be the best of the best, I have way too many interests and hobbies to devote myself in that fashion.  I just want to be well above average.

It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

avonlea

  • Guest
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2014, 09:49:11 AM »
It's a clear example of a fixed mindset, rather than a growth mindset, for those of you that have read Mindset by Carol Dweck.

I haven't, but I want to now.  Thanks for the recommendation!

TreeTired

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Age: 137
  • Location: North Carolina
  • I think we can make it
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2014, 09:59:26 AM »
So is that what happened in the bronze medal game?

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8389
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2014, 10:02:16 AM »
I think it is also a way of "hedging your bets"or saving grace if you lose. Now we can say "well we didn't play up to our potential because it was just for third place."

I absolutely hate dealing with people who exhibit childish behavior like this.  And make no mistake about it, if they have this attitude, they have PLENTY of other childish ones too.

If you want to be professional at your craft always do your best with the time and resources allotted.

If you want to be successful in life, ditto.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28503
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2014, 10:41:48 AM »
I've always been a Jack of all trades, and it suits my personality.  I would much rather be in the top 10% of a whole host of things than in the top 1% of one or two things.  I've also found that one does not have to spend a whole lot of time doing something to get in that top 10% because most people specialize, they aren't Jacks of all trades.  I'll give an example using sports, since I tend to be athletic (well, maybe not as much as I used to be!).  I golf in the low 80s. I can bowl above 150 consistently. I can throw darts and shoot pool better than my friends. Etc. Etc.  The thing is, I don't golf regularly any more, haven't bowled a league in 20 years, and only rarely throw darts or shoot pool.

The thing that sets me apart is I took lessons or just practiced in all of these things, and in the case of darts and pool only a few lessons were needed to set me well above the average guy who had never had a good lesson.  That and some hours of practice and I am better than most folks at these hobbies.  Put me in a dart or a pool league where the top 1% hang out and I'll get crushed but that's OK, because I am not striving to be the best of the best, I have way too many interests and hobbies to devote myself in that fashion.  I just want to be well above average.

It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

I love this, and am saving it into Evernote for later reference.  Well put.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Dibbels81

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Location: Highland Park, IL
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2014, 12:30:01 PM »
I think there needs to be a balance between "playing to win" and "playing for fun."  I enjoy playing board games, but when I discover someone with the "I play Monopoly to WIN" attitude, they don't get an invite back to my place (plus they can't beat me anyway).  I only play to win when losing would be unacceptable, e.g. life

2527

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2014, 12:50:00 PM »
Gerard, I understand exactly what you are saying (I think!), and I agree completely.  I think the sooner people realize it, the happier and more successful they are. 

For example, consider the hobby of running.  I have been running for about 35 years now.  A few miles at a time, a few days a week, never time myself. Ran a couple 10Ks and half marathon a long time ago.  I really enjoy it and it is good for me.  Maybe I would like to do some more 10Ks.  But I've never become obsessive and strived for more and more distance and faster and faster times, and I've never given myself a sports injury, and I've never disrupted my family's life with a running obsession. 

Or consider investing.  I buy index mutual funds and hold them for the long haul, and get a decent return.  I've did try day trading a long time ago, drove myself crazy and found I wasn't successful.  So I do basic investing, sleep well at night, and get the results I want. 

moestache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • Location: Australia
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2014, 05:37:49 PM »
I've always been a Jack of all trades, and it suits my personality.  I would much rather be in the top 10% of a whole host of things than in the top 1% of one or two things.  I've also found that one does not have to spend a whole lot of time doing something to get in that top 10% because most people specialize, they aren't Jacks of all trades.  I'll give an example using sports, since I tend to be athletic (well, maybe not as much as I used to be!).  I golf in the low 80s. I can bowl above 150 consistently. I can throw darts and shoot pool better than my friends. Etc. Etc.  The thing is, I don't golf regularly any more, haven't bowled a league in 20 years, and only rarely throw darts or shoot pool.

The thing that sets me apart is I took lessons or just practiced in all of these things, and in the case of darts and pool only a few lessons were needed to set me well above the average guy who had never had a good lesson.  That and some hours of practice and I am better than most folks at these hobbies.  Put me in a dart or a pool league where the top 1% hang out and I'll get crushed but that's OK, because I am not striving to be the best of the best, I have way too many interests and hobbies to devote myself in that fashion.  I just want to be well above average.

It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

I am like this also. I take an interest in a whole range of things and I've never had any trouble getting good at something I was interested in. But I don't strive to be the best. To be above average at alot of things is enough. Also at some stage theres a point where diminishing returns start to take place..having to put in a lot of time and effort just to get marginal improvement.

TheRedHead

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • There's a whole lotta (fill in the blank) going on here.
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2014, 07:32:11 PM »
The Russia game was obviously our gold medal game. I still wish our team had showed up to play but at least they didn't trash their dressing rooms.

Hedge_87

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
  • Age: 34
  • Location: South central ks
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2014, 07:55:43 PM »
The Russia game was obviously our gold medal game. I still wish our team had showed up to play but at least they didn't trash their dressing rooms.
Wait who trashed their dressing room?

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2014, 09:17:15 PM »
It's a clear example of a fixed mindset, rather than a growth mindset, for those of you that have read Mindset by Carol Dweck.
Haven't read it, but haven't heard a bad suggestion from you yet, so I'll yet another book to my reading list. I'm going to have to catch FIRE just to catch up. :-)
I was thinking along the lines of the internal vs. external goals from the Stoic Joy book, where you maintain control. Instead of playing to win, which isn't fully in ones control, you play to the best of your ability, which you have full control over.

I've always been a Jack of all trades, and it suits my personality.  I would much rather be in the top 10% of a whole host of things than in the top 1% of one or two things.  I've also found that one does not have to spend a whole lot of time doing something to get in that top 10% because most people specialize, they aren't Jacks of all trades.  I'll give an example using sports, since I tend to be athletic (well, maybe not as much as I used to be!).  I golf in the low 80s. I can bowl above 150 consistently. I can throw darts and shoot pool better than my friends. Etc. Etc.  The thing is, I don't golf regularly any more, haven't bowled a league in 20 years, and only rarely throw darts or shoot pool.

The thing that sets me apart is I took lessons or just practiced in all of these things, and in the case of darts and pool only a few lessons were needed to set me well above the average guy who had never had a good lesson.  That and some hours of practice and I am better than most folks at these hobbies.  Put me in a dart or a pool league where the top 1% hang out and I'll get crushed but that's OK, because I am not striving to be the best of the best, I have way too many interests and hobbies to devote myself in that fashion.  I just want to be well above average.

It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.
This has been my goal for such a long time. My only difference is there are some things I really get into, and do attempt to master. I prefer the phrase
Jack of all trades, master of some.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2014, 06:57:08 AM »
To be above average at alot of things is enough. Also at some stage theres a point where diminishing returns start to take place..having to put in a lot of time and effort just to get marginal improvement.

Well said, I've experienced the same.  At my best I have been a 6 handicap at golf, which probably puts me in the top 1-2% of all golfers.  It's hard but not all that hard to get from a 12 to a 6 handicap if you play regularly, but to get from 6 to 0 takes a whole lotta time, practice, and dedication (plus a decent amount of natural ability).  I realized years ago that I had reached a plateau in my game, and that was just fine. 

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2014, 07:11:46 AM »
It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

I think when you ER, you should write a book about this.  Just one week of your ER; don't, like, spend too much time on it.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2014, 08:41:18 AM »
It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

I think when you ER, you should write a book about this.  Just one week of your ER; don't, like, spend too much time on it.

Eh, I'm sure there are folks that can write it better than me.....

zachd

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2014, 10:45:22 AM »

Interesting topic... as it relates to a team who loses playing for #1, and then goes on to get beaten badly for a lesser place...  I can say from my experience with high school football that yes, when you focus years of your life on a certain goal and then you have done everything you can to obtain that goal and you still fall short that it can be a mental and psychological blow that you may not be able to recover from.  You are never preparing to lose, and then play for a consolation prize so finding yourself in that position is difficult to say the least.  This sort of thing is only going to happen to the highest caliber of teams.  A team who's goal is just to go to a bowl game or win x number of games isn't going to be as crushed by losing as the team who is #1 and their goal is to be undefeated and the sole champion of their league (or world, or sports bar, or whatever). 

Of course approaching sports from the position of play to the best of your ability is a good thing.  That is the great thing about sports... sometimes the underdog somehow comes out on top.  People play above themselves in a ways that others would not have thought possible.  Or a team comes together in a way that is greater than the sum of their parts.

I don't know how well this correlates with life though.  Life doesnt' seem so dramatic and no one is trying to 'win it all' financially.. well maybe Warren Buffet is, but I mean the rest of the 99% are probably just trying to be 'winners' but aren't really competiting with anyone to be the 'best'.  Although I don't know, maybe someone people are competive when it comes to 'life' and I'm just a slacker.

It also occurred to me from my more recent experience playing softball there are really 4 outcomes to a sporting event.

You play your best, and you win (Great feeling, your hard work and preparation has paid off)
You play poorly, and you win (A hollow victory, real competitors don't feel good when this happens, you may need to move up to another level if this happens to often)
You play your best, and you lose (Can be painful, but there is often a satisfaction that you couldn't do anymore than you did. makes you want to try harder. Compeitive people will mark their calendars for the rematch.)
You play poory, and you lose (Discouraging, is bad for morale when it happens too often, means you need to PRACTICE more, or consider changing sports, or find a less compeitive / more recreational level of play.)

Sorry, one more thing
SHAKE AND BAKE!



Cheddar Stacker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3722
  • Age: 43
  • Location: USA
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2014, 02:55:17 PM »
Hybrid's post hit me perfectly, just like 2-3 others have said already. It's crazy how someone can describe themselves on this forum and it sounds like they are describing me.

To the OP I'd like to quote the great Homer Simpson:

     "You tried your best, and you failed miserably, so the lesson is, never try."

They tried their best against Canada, and they learned their lesson. I strive to be good, not great. Or maybe great, but certainly not perfect. It's too hard and you set yourself up for failure.

RootofGood

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Age: 41
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Retired at age 33. 5 years in, still loving it!
    • Root of Good
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2014, 03:28:45 PM »
I don't know what wealth or income percentiles I fall into now that I'm ER'd, or what income percentiles we were at while working, but I basically followed the "good enough" rule.  The effort to get from "good enough" to "the best in my field" is enormous!  And the payoff would have been financially somewhat minor (after taxes). 

As for wealth accumulation, we could keep working forever and probably worm our way into the top 1% or top 0.1%, but who cares?  We're never going to be billionaires.  And as Warren Buffett has said, the only thing he can do that run of the mill wealthy can't is fly on his private jet.  That's okay - I'll fly coach, or take a bus or train, or just relax at home. 

I apply the same logic to many other areas of life.  I like to save money, and carefully consume to do so.  But I'll never be ERE extreme non-spender.  I'm okay with that and make cost cuts in the easiest places first. 

I'll never be the smartest guy on earth, but that doesn't mean I should give up learning new things every day.

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2014, 04:05:46 PM »
I've always been a Jack of all trades, and it suits my personality.  I would much rather be in the top 10% of a whole host of things than in the top 1% of one or two things.  I've also found that one does not have to spend a whole lot of time doing something to get in that top 10% because most people specialize, they aren't Jacks of all trades.  I'll give an example using sports, since I tend to be athletic (well, maybe not as much as I used to be!).  I golf in the low 80s. I can bowl above 150 consistently. I can throw darts and shoot pool better than my friends. Etc. Etc.  The thing is, I don't golf regularly any more, haven't bowled a league in 20 years, and only rarely throw darts or shoot pool.

The thing that sets me apart is I took lessons or just practiced in all of these things, and in the case of darts and pool only a few lessons were needed to set me well above the average guy who had never had a good lesson.  That and some hours of practice and I am better than most folks at these hobbies.  Put me in a dart or a pool league where the top 1% hang out and I'll get crushed but that's OK, because I am not striving to be the best of the best, I have way too many interests and hobbies to devote myself in that fashion.  I just want to be well above average.

It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

agreed with everyone else who said this is very well put. I'm the same way, I get way too bored to ever get REALLY good at one thing. plus, I think this fits with the MMM "don't outsource" philosophy. if I can cook delicious, but not crazy-gourmet meals, that is a great money-saving life skill that requires less time and $ input than being REALLY gourmet. I can whip up a pretty badass custom tshirt design in Inkscape for running events/drinking events/whatever the hell crazy events my friends come up with, so we can look awesome and don't need to pay a professional... but I don't need to be a professional graphic designer with professional-caliber expensive software to do this. if I can do basic maintenance and repairs on my bike, that will save a bunch of money and I can still always go to my local bike shop or one of my bike expert friends for the occasional more complex repair. so I both enjoy the "jack of all trades" mindset more, AND I think it's actually more efficient.

also, for the couple people who described it as diminishing returns, I think that's so dead on.

I think these may just be different personality types, though. I am really NOT a competitive person, at all, although I am somewhat competitive with myself.

It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

I think when you ER, you should write a book about this.  Just one week of your ER; don't, like, spend too much time on it.

bahahahaha yes!

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28503
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2014, 05:08:12 PM »
It's been said that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master something.  I'll offer that it only takes about 20 to get pretty darn good at many things.

I think when you ER, you should write a book about this.  Just one week of your ER; don't, like, spend too much time on it.

Eh, I'm sure there are folks that can write it better than me.....

There's actually a book on this:

http://www.amazon.com/The-First-20-Hours-Anything/dp/1591845556


Anyone read it?  Looks like some pretty mediocre reviews on Amazon.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28503
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2014, 05:34:50 PM »
No. I think the author has a TED talk floating around, if anyone wants to get a feel for his philosophy.

Yeah, I've seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

mikecorayer

  • Guest
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2014, 03:26:53 AM »
I watched that TED talk a few months ago, and I wasn't all that impressed.  I think it's a bit misleading because the first 20 hours of progress can seem very fast, and this creates an illusion that a high level of skill isn't that far away.  In actuality, progress will flatten out and you'll have to spend a lot more time getting through the intermediate level.  In the case of language learning, sure it feels great to go from 0 words to a modest vocabulary of a few hundred words/phrases, but if you really want to reach fluency you have to be prepared for thousands of hours of reading, listening, and practicing.

To relate this to Carol Dweck's work on Mindset I think the desire to improve really quickly and "show off" your skills reveals a fixed mindset.  Rather than enjoying the process and not caring about external measures of success (a growth mindset), it's about showing that you're good enough or proving that you can do X because you're so smart/talented/special. 

Mindset has been a really important book for me and it's a concept I share with all of my students at the beginning of the year (I teach psychology), promising never to praise them as "smart" and focusing on how hard they work instead.  I've written a few posts related to Dweck's book and some of my other thoughts on mindset, if you're curious enough to read them you might start here: http://www.uncomfortableoptimist.com/an-introduction-to-fixed-vs-growth-mindsets/


hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2014, 07:51:18 AM »
There was a post recently about Frugal Fatigue that I think dovetails nicely into this conversation. I really admire what MMM has done with his life. He has reached a point that, realistically, my family will almost certainly never obtain and thus my forum moniker hybrid. MMMs lifestyle isn't a competition (can I get by on less than 25K a year???), it's a worthy goal. In the past year I've accomplished much and more to get to that point but just like skill acquisition I've reached the point of diminishing (but still real) returns, as all the low hanging fruit has been plucked. I could stop right now and be perfectly happy with the experience.

I admire the folks that are truly dedicated to being the very best they can be at something. I do think that sometimes they miss out on the fun of becoming pretty darn good at a lot of things.

   

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28503
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2014, 07:59:07 AM »
I admire the folks that are truly dedicated to being the very best they can be at something. I do think that sometimes they miss out on the fun of becoming pretty darn good at a lot of things.

Maybe.  Sometimes.

But it's not necessarily an either-or situation (in other words, I'm assuming you wouldn't take it so far as to create a false dichotomy).
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

senecando

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 482
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Madison, Wi
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2014, 08:39:44 AM »
Sidenote to arebelspy: If the server ever crashes and deletes the contents of this forum, I have about half of it saved in Evernote.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28503
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2014, 09:01:30 AM »
Sidenote to arebelspy: If the server ever crashes and deletes the contents of this forum, I have about half of it saved in Evernote.

lol.

Awesome.

I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: Winning (it all) vs. "winning"
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2014, 11:50:34 AM »
I admire the folks that are truly dedicated to being the very best they can be at something. I do think that sometimes they miss out on the fun of becoming pretty darn good at a lot of things.

Maybe.  Sometimes.

But it's not necessarily an either-or situation (in other words, I'm assuming you wouldn't take it so far as to create a false dichotomy).

No, I'm not. It's an awful lot of fun to experience and become decent at a number of things and not be too invested in them, and sometimes I see folks who lose the joy of something if they are not among the elite at it. I'll use a few golf examples to demonstrate what I'm getting at. A partner at work who is getting older now and used to be very, very good at golf quit the game entirely when he could no longer strike the ball the way he used to, and he's bitter about it. My brother quit at golf because he couldn't advance beyond a 16 handicap, which your average Saturday hacker would love to be able to manage. That sort of thing. As for me, I've come tantalizingly close to shooting par but haven't pulled it off, and if I never manage it I won't lose sleep over it. I'm a very good (not great) golf player, and that's good enough.  I don't ever have to win the Club Championship to have been successful.