How to be a loser

If there is one thing I've learnt recently is this: Most people don't really want to do stuff. They want to read stuff, talk about stuff, plan stuff, design stuff, but they don't want to do stuff. People have come to me and asked me for advice on some stuff I know after I wrote about it. I tell them what to do, but most of them just don't do it.

People are afraid to compete because they prefer to pretend they could have won if they played, than to know that they played and lost.

"some men do eke out contentment, and they get there by gradually ratcheting down their expectations. Their appetites fade. They compromise, and rationalize, and eventually settle.

That’s the loser’s consolation prize."

The problem with this view is that being content with what you have makes you a loser. In fact, whenever I read something piece that attempts to divide people up between the categories of winners and losers, I always end up feeling like I would just rather not play that game.

(not to say there isn't some good advice in there, especially about not feeling too comfortable. i just find the winners/losers paradigm pretty limited)

That hits too close to home. All I could think while reading were all the projects I have in a prototype state that would be so good - if only...

That's not a loser, that's a quitter. A loser is someone who keeps working at something they hate day after day because they're sure that success is just around the corner.

"Winners forget they're in a race. They just love to run." -- Joe Pesci, With Honors

I think the perspective of this article is wrong. The author says that if you're not working hard, you're not learning. "Working hard" implies stress. It's hard to learn under stress. When I was young, I used to take piano lessons. The best way to learn a new piece was to take it slow, one step at time, calmly. Whenever I got stressed, I would stop learning and make stupid mistakes. Learning is best done stress-free, at a pace that feels leisurely, but where progress is steady.

"Winning" depends not on one's capacity to endure stress (work hard), but on focusing on the right activities over time. So in classical music, the winner is the one who spends more hours of fruitful practice than one who works harder during the recitals. In school, the winner is the one who thinks about the material more during the course, not the one who crams before the exam.

I think this most true in business. The business winner is the one who steadily improves or who operates in a different way, rather than the one who is most stressed out.

Stress is generally destructive. It should be minimized. The focus needs to be on steady, stress-free or even playful, practice. If you have an idea, just start playing with it. Don't expect to "win" with it in a short session of "hard work." You need to be biased towards action. If action implies something unpleasant, you'll avoid it and stress about it. That's why so many people recommend that you do what you love.

That article kind of makes being a loser appealing.

I think that as business people, we focus way to much on 'attitude' and not nearly enough on 'ability' - When choosing technical employees or business partners, you can often get a much better value by focusing on people who have everything but the confidence.

Of course, if you are hiring sales, confidence matters; However, when hiring nerds, it's different. Confidence plays a much smaller role.

I prefer PJ Eby's discussion on 'winners' and 'losers': http://thinkingthingsdone.com/signup/Chapter1-Preview.pdf

"""People in the naturally successful orientation have a bizarre knack for turning everything they touch into a success [..] and believe that traditional catchphrases like “no pain, no gain”, and “when the going gets tough, the tough get going”, actually carry some sort of deep wisdom.

People in the naturally struggling orientation, on the other hand, seem to have the knack for turning everything they do into a struggle, [..] And, if you’re in the naturally struggling orientation, then the very same catchphrases and slogans that spur naturally successful people to new heights of achievement, will just make you feel inadequate. Consider this: when you tell yourself to “just do it”, does it make you want to get started right away?

If so, then you’re probably a naturally successful person. But if it just makes you feel miserable... then you’re definitely naturally struggling.

Which brings me to a very important point:

Naturally successful and naturally struggling people don’t even speak the same language."""

People are afraid to set "big" goals. Big, as in stand on your tiptoes and strain to see the objective type of big. Not run of the mill "just beyond my grasp" kind of goals.

Setting "big" goals is imperative. Because moving in their direction sets into motion all the circumstances that allow you to learn and experience so much more.

There is no failure. Only learning.

This is pretty true, and always something I think I struggle with. Clearly, one needs a mindset like this to choosing your life's path, or to your job/studies/whatever is most important. But where is the line drawn? Is there anything wrong, for example, with the 9th grade cross country races being fun diversions?

Going from "I think of losing as not winning" to "I think of being a winner as not being a loser" is not an inversion like the author claims. It's a change of subject from outcomes to stereotypes.

Very similar, if not the same concept as Seth Godin's "The Dip" http://sethgodin.typepad.com/the_dip/ (very good read)