Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

People want to see the podium only when they win. In other words, if you aren't leading the leaderboard, you don't want it.


sort by: page size:

If they want to win /more/ than they want to not use it.

It's not that it can't be won, it's that there's an incentive to never finish and stay there.

What's wrong with winning? Why not let people keep winning?

First, winning has nothing to do with it. I would probably hope to win, and plan on losing.

Second, it's also far too easy to hide and let everyone else do the hard work.


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.


getting there first is not the same as winning :)

Is there no point in trying unless you can dominate the segment?

If all you celebrate are the 'wins', you disincentive people from taking risks.

Only a very small minority of people are "winners." Chances are you are in the majority.

And the winners stand out and are easy to notice. You see them on the TV, in movies, on the internet, in advertisements and commercials, articles are written about them.

You see the one douchebag in a Porsche but all the other typical people in their typical cars are invisible.

It can create a warped perspective.


People rarely remember the first loser - the person with the silver medal award.

Regardless of how good/evil the winner was, the simple fact they came out on top is used as positive motivational material.


> 22.1% admit they care too much about who wins and who loses

Recommendation: Stop framing it as "winning" and "losing".


When you're a tournament winner, you're not a customer of the company, you're a partner that's using the tournament as a soapbox for your politics.

The expression is not meant as proof that you're on the track to winning, it's meant to encourage you if you're currently being ignored.

Sure, being ignored is part of the losing process but it's also part of the winning process. Don't get discouraged just because you're being ignored.


Nah man. It's a race. I finish first, I win. I win every time.

Well, if you finish, you beat all the people that didn't

Right, and letting everybody see some lucky person win once in a while sort of perpetuates the delusion that it could be you, the guy standing on the sidelines.

Ultimately, it's cheaper for whoever owns the tent to let one person win every once in a while then to just let everybody lose.

I may be stretching the analogy but yeah.


People don't understand the point of competition is virtue, not winning.

Take the 'winning' mentality to its logical extreme of killing all the competition, and the absurdity of it all becomes obvious.


Victory means that in the Race to the Bottom, you look back and see nobody behind you. Now you can stop and start walking backwards, and still be competitive.

Well, those that lose their 1st place might not welcome it as much...
next

Legal | privacy