Hacker News Reader

Comment by locallost | Hacker News Reader

I did not see any mention of the type of sports they analysed. I think it makes a big difference, e.g. winning silver in a tournament type competition like basketball means you lost your last game, whereas winning bronze means you won your last game. On the other hand a 100 meter dash is 8 people racing all at the same time, so winning silver does not feel like losing gold as much to me. You still beat out the bronze medalist in direct competition.

edit: but of course, it's also common that there are two big names in a competition, so winning silver in that case means you lost gold.

View on HN

Due to the 3 place podium, regardless of the type of competition second place looks like narrowly missing a total win, while third place looks like narrowly missing a total loss. People tend to look at the alternative to decide their relative feelings.

It's why even tragic situations can be an opportunity to be happy because the alternative is even worse, while some happy situations can be disappointing because they could have been so much better. Or the stock market where a modest win that could have been huge might feel worse than a loss that could have been huge.

Yes, IIRC, for Formula One there was a saying ages ago that the 3 most unhappy participants after a race are 2nd place (did not win), 4th place (did not get to be on the podium) and 7th place (did not get any points).

edit: Now I looked at it again and I see that F1 has adjusted their points system throughout the following years, so you need to replace the 7th place with whatever is relevant now.

They simplified F1 a bit. Now the most unhappy participants are Haas.

What do you mean by Haas?

It's one of the Formula 1 teams

Watch an F1 race, look at the leaderboard, look for the bottom 2 positions.

That's Haas

Just a bit more context that might explain why Haas might be the unhappy ones currently. There's a lot of capital-D Drama surrounding the team right now but I'll stick to these two facts:

- Due to financial reasons they had to let go their veteran drivers (just two in F1) from last season and are currently featuring an all-rookie line up.

- They've gone on record to say that they are not developing the 2021 car, instead focusing on the specs change for 2022.

So two rookies in a team that is basically just in the competition for the participation. At least one driver from Williams, the bottom feeders a season or two ago, have the chutzpah to aim for points finish this year. Haas can't be a fulfilling team to be in right now.

Oh, and one of their rookie drivers sexually assaulted a woman and posted it on Instagram...

11th is the current equivalent.

I'd go along with that. 2nd place == first loser. Bronze is still top 3, more recognition than the rest of the field.

I remember the same. It seems we're nearly 20 years out of date! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Cham...

I never v thought of it that way, but your reminds me of Daniel Kahneman’s work regarding how people remember their own experiences. Regardless of how well things went during the entire duration of the activity, the last experience was disproportionately weighted in terms of framing the memory. In that context, it makes sense why the tournament style silver medalists would be more dissatisfied.

“We suggest that patients' memories of painful medical procedures largely reflect the intensity of pain at the worst part and at the final part of the experience.”[1]

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030439...

Yes exactly, the style of competition can certainly affect your perception of the results. For example, in foot race with multiple participants, the silver medalist might be happy with second, because they know they dug in deep and barely beat out the bronze medalist at the finish line. Whereas in archery since you are competing in isolation of the other contestants, the silver medalist might be annoyed that the one shot in round 3 cost them the chance for the gold.

I mean isn't it obvious? Third place is great because you narrowly avoided winning no medals, but second place isn't because you narrowly avoided winning the first place.

I don’t have a source, but I think I remember seeing something about this in the context of a study about olympic swimming, back in my swimming days, for what little that’s worth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com