The Winner Effect: The Neuroscience of Success and Failure

by Ian H. Robertson

What makes a winner? Why do some people succeed both in life and in business, and others fail? Why do a few individuals end up supremely powerful, while many remain powerless?The "winner effect" is a term used in biology to describe how an animal that has won a few fights against weak opponents is much more likely to win later bouts against stronger contenders. As Ian Robertson reveals, it applies to humans, too. Success changes the chemistry of the brain, making you more focused, smarter, more confident, and more aggressive. The effect is as strong as any drug. And the more you win, the more you will go on to win. But the downside is that winning can become physically addictive.By understanding what the mental and physical changes are that take place in the brain of a "winner," how they happen, and why they affect some people more than others, Robertson answers the question of why some people attain and then handle success better than others. He explains what makes a winner—or a loser—and how we can use the answers to these questions to understand better the behavior of our business colleagues, family, friends, and ourselves.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Self Help, Science, Neuroscience, Personal Development, Business

321 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 1, 2012

About the author

Ian Robertson is Professor of Psychology at Trinity College, Dublin and founding Director of Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience. Robertson is the first psychologist in Ireland to have been elected a member of the Royal Irish Academy. Robertson also holds the positions of Visiting Professor at University College London, Visiting Professor at Bangor University, University of Wales, and Visiting Scientist at the Rotman Research Institute, University of Toronto. Robertson was previously a Senior Scientist at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at the University of Cambridge, where he was also a fellow at Hughes Hall. Robertson sat on the Wellcome Trust Neuroscience and Mental Health Committee from 2006–2011.
Robertson is Director of the NIEL programme (Neuroenhancement for Inequalities in Elder Lives[3]). He was founding director of Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience.
A graduate of Glasgow University, Robertson gained his Masters (Clinical Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry) and Doctoral (Neuropsychology) degrees at the University of London.
Ian Robertson has published over 250 scientific articles in leading journals, including Nature, Brain, Journal of Neuroscience, and Psychological Bulletin. Ian has also contributed to public communication and understanding of science, contributing regularly to The Times and The Daily Telegraph, he was also a columnist for the British Medical Journal. Robertson is author and editor of ten scientific books, including the leading international textbook on cognitive rehabilitation (Cognitive Neurorehabilitation), and several books for the general reader which have been translated into multiple languages.

Reviews

[Leonidas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The winner effect

Here is a quick subjective summary of the winner effect. The more you win, the more likely you are to win in the future. Winning increases your testosterone levels, which makes you better at winning.

Losing decreases your testosterone, thus making you worse at winning.

Skilled/Experienced winners react more strongly to testosterone increases, while reacting less to cortisol increases (stress molecule). Inversely, unskilled/inexperienced winners react less to testosterone, and more to cortisol.

Furthermore, skilled/experienced winners start craving more winning experiences because their risk-tolerance increases, because of their increased testosterone.

The display of power, and exertion of power is also a function of the winner effect, and influenced heavily by increased levels of testosterone.

Powerful people also have a larger reaction to wins (t-level increase), and smaller reactions to losses (cortisol level increases).

But power causes people to turn off their emotional side, to filter through noise, and thus begin to objectify people and animals around them.

Objectification is useful during times of leadership when tasks need objective reasoning, and minimal emotional influence. But objectification also regularly results in the mass sickening of people, the environment, and everything else.

Thus power needs to be coupled with conscious awareness, and greater moral judgements (although morality is relative to the culture as well).

Finally, the book itself is written in a similar format to 'The power of habit' with initial stories, being sporadically connected throughout. In the power of habit, this was executed nicely, but in the winner effect, you get too many stories going on at the same time.

Sometimes the connection between the topic of the chapter is somehow loosely, and esoterically tied in with some historical event. I will admit, I was confused, and lost more than once due to this configuration of writing.

Nonetheless, The winner effect is a great book to satiate your understanding of how your body works in relation to winning, and how it relates to your circle of influence, and societies.

4/5 stars

[Clare O'Beara · Rating 4 out of 5]

The researches and messages of this book on neuroscience and psychology are interesting, but I felt the presentation suffered.

I liked that the work included Ireland and UK but I was keener on research experiments carried out on volunteers, than on analysing the words in Tony Blair's speeches. Yet if we are to have leaders, we must elect people capable of doing a job and give them power. The author makes this point at length - perhaps too much so - including stating that all relationships are power struggles. He could have given some suggestions as to how to strike a balance in a personal relationship, instead of just providing a dire example or two.

We learn some recent research findings such as that being under lengthy stress from powerlessness, as well as causing depression, actually makes areas of the brain shrink and reduces connections. In other words we genuinely get less intelligent. I also hadn't heard that Chinese people think of their mother and of themselves in the same part of the brain, whereas the rest of us do not. (What about their father? Not mentioned.) This gives them a greater sense of collective identity. Something like a beehive maybe, though the author doesn't make this connection. Also, Oscar winners live longer than other actors.

Some good examples of how bullies manipulate and encourage others to behave despicably are provided. While this is related to schoolchildren, we also get a look at 20th century extremes, and many of us will have been the victim of such groupthink bullying in our adult lives.

If you put the book down and come back to it over a few evenings, you'll forget what the s power and the p power each meant, or contributed to the argument. The topics often cover issues that seem self-evident, but psychology students have to justify their research.

The style is awkward with continual hopping around throughout the book: a natural evolutionary characteristic of cichlid fish is that some males are bright coloured and some are dull, the bright ones holding territory and attracting females. To understand this we need to look at who wears a red shirt and who a blue in Olympic sports. But before we make a conclusion on shirts, let's see what Tony Blair was saying when he met his then friend George Bush. Now to understand Tony Blair it's necessary to examine this recent research finding. Enron meanwhile, and the car manufacturers in America, had executives who displayed a total disconnect with public opinion. Did the cichlid fish have a bearing on this? Why did power go to their heads and would women executives have behaved differently? In order to understand women and power we need to go back to Tony Blair and Chinese people....

Make a point! Then proceed. Tie them all in at the end.

[David Dinaburg · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is something too simple about The Winner Effect, something about the colloquial tone covering some of neuroscience’s most in-depth and detailed fMRI-fuelled discoveries that makes me wonder: what, exactly, am I learning here?

The right prefrontal cortex has a predilection for a quite different chemical messenger than the dopamine of its gung-ho partner - its favoured neurochemical cocktail is noradrenaline...[which is] linked to vigilant, watchful behaviour in real life, and that this in turn is linked to activity in the right half of the prefrontal cortex. When the right prefrontal cortex is alerted to potential threat, it widens the focus of attention....
Powerlessness is a sort of threat, so it makes sense that people without power should be more inclined to scan the horizon for the threat of unforeseen events they cannot control. The left prefrontal cortex does the opposite when geared up for action - it focuses attention on the goal...power, then, may unbalance our very ability to recognise risk, as well as our inclination to take heed of it.

It is such a smooth, quick read for a technical and often intimidating field—the brain—that it can often feel too streamlined. Sections can seem at once earth-shaking and completely obvious:

In getting the confederate to play the trick, you are getting from them a commitment which, because of cognitive dissonance, means that they will find it hard to say no when the bully asks them to do something a little bit less innocent. The dACC quickly detects conflict in the bully’s new companion’s brain: ‘I’m a good person, but I am doing this to them—ergo they must be a bad person deserving of this.’
And so we see spiralling situations where more and more people in a group are manipulated by the bully into harassing the mobbing the poor victim. Most of them in other circumstances may be decent people but unbeknown to them, the bully has injected conflict into their inconsistency-hating brains, forcing the dACC to desperately balance out the conflict in the only way it can—by concluding that the victim is hateful and deserving of all they are getting.

C.S Lewis, in a lecture—The Inner Ring—that predates the fMRI by nearly half a century, describes the social lure of what has now been attributed to the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and its internal, dissonance-reducing justification process. Centuries of literature and social theory seem to burst forth with new, scientifically supported vigor; even within The Winner Effect, Ben Franklin is cited as having explained a technique predicated on dACC manipulation—renowned inventor or no, he did not have access to an fMRI. It is hard not to wonder if knowing the biomechanical why behind some of these interpersonal reactions and a theoretical reduction down to their biological and chemical level might strip them of their glory. Social theories, butting up against the chemistry of the brain, run the risk of becoming fixed and unalterable as society accedes to the immutability of biochemical reactions. This predestined bleakness is akin to 'genetic fatalism', which can cause people to assume that "...their personality and behaviour are largely outside of their control. And if we believe they're outside of our control, for sure we won't be able to control them."

There is a repeated theme of the rejection of genetic fatalism throughout The Winner Effect, that intelligence isn’t fixed; moreover, simply the belief that intelligence isn’t fixed has an impact on the mind:

...once you start believing that your intelligence is endowed, you will tend to cope badly with failure compared with those who believe it’s something incremental that can be worked on....people who see their performance as a manifestation of this entity called intelligence tend to focus on ‘performance’ goals. …[P]erformance wasn’t just a skill, like how well they played tennis—it was a central outcrop of their egos. Once intellect comes to be seen in this way, performance becomes a total risk—and it is the entire self-esteem that is being risked. ...People [who see intellect this way] are constantly focused on beating others—on being first. It is the outcome they are concerned with, understandably enough, because every outcome is a public test of their ego. And if they cannot be sure of beating others, they shy away from the contest.

The brain, on the one hand, can be thought of as fixed— ‘mechanical’—so far as something like the scoundrelism spiral is concerned; if you’re primed to treat someone badly, your internal, mental regulation from the dACC will continue to justify this action, perhaps even extending it to something slightly more cruel each time. Access to power can increase dopamine, limit noradrenaline, and limit the ability to assess risk. Another ‘mechanical’ response to stimuli.

The reader is primed to reject genetic fatalism regarding intelligence, yet heap upon heap of studies and stories are detailed concerning individuals with more or fewer receptors for certain chemicals in the brain, or are better able to handle the high levels of cortisol that stress can produce. Cortisol and its mind-warping impact is regularly cited as a substance that floods the mind and weakens the memory by dumping extra glucose into the blood and brain of those who are not capable of handling the current task's stress levels. "Power makes bullies of people who feel inadequate in the role of boss. With power comes the demand to perform under the close and critical scrutiny of underlings, peers and bosses." How, then, has this not replaced the genetic fatalism of intelligence with a genetic fatalism of brain chemistry, creating categories of persons deemed unfit for positions of power solely by virtue how their brain handles certain chemicals? What could be more fatalistic then that?

Despite these questions, The Winner Effect is a wonderful read and a great book. It is interesting while it educates the reader, simple but not patronizing. Straightforward. No one can justifiably expect an answer to every question about the human brain, certainly not in a 300 page pop-fiction book, but like most good non-fiction, The Winner Effect makes the reader more curious about the subject matter.

[Petru Buracioc · Rating 5 out of 5]

An in-depth analysis of what makes a winner based on neuroscience, psychology, and history. It also looks at the insidious effects of power and how power when abused can rewrite our brains for the worst.

[Paul Bard · Rating 1 out of 5]

When, in this book, Ian Robertson's writing jumps from subject to subject in rhetorical circles to engage attention, he is overestimating the attention span of his audience. And at least in my case, over-esteeming the interest of the lay reader in what he has to say.

And no, I'm not saying it's boring. I'm saying it's long-winded and circuitous. The book uses a frame of " five mysteries" for things that are actually self-evident.

We are treated to a chapter on Carol Dweck's non-determinism, followed by a chapter with a leftist bias on psychological and social determinism. Frankly this tells us nothing about Mr Robertson's subject and much about Mr Robertson's philosophy of life. Which is fine. But Robertson is not the topic of the book.

Chapter 3, "The Enigma of Bill Clinton's Friend", purports to be about the (socially determined) factors for Mr Blair's popularity vis-a-vis Mr Clinton. Robertson uses biological reductionism (neurology) to explain when, when it is far more likely the real reason for Mr Blair's popularity and rift with Mr Clinton is that he has a better moral character than Mr Clinton does. And Mr Robertson's absurd progressive excuse for this is 'because neurology'.

Chapter 4 asks us why Oscar Award and Nobel prize winners outlive the nominees by 4 years. Robertson answers, "because stress". But, why stress? Robertson riffs on individualism, giving a truly terrible potted history of the emergence of individuality in Western culture, then riffing on variations of personhood and how stress effects them. His conclusion: shame and pride are socially determined stressors. Again Robertson gets sucked into a deterministic bias.

The "mystery" frame of chapter 5 is especially dull. "Is there a downside of success?" Robertson asks. I mean, has the dolt not read a Greek tragedy? Doesn't he even know the meaning of the word "hubris"? Next!

The final chapter asks what it means to be a winner. Robertson's empowering message can be summarized in this quote from the concluding paragraph of his book:

"Winners are to a considerable extent made by their circumstances and environments... but sometimes we don't benefit from such circumstances because of unconscious prejudices and stereotypes in our own and others' brains."

In other words, not only are we socially determined, but we are also bigoted against ourselves. Transposing the language of civil rights to pop psychology, Robertson proposes a milquetoast revolution in the human right to be a winner. Rather than Professing psychology, Ian Robertson's book "The Winner Effect" seeks indoctrinate us in his progressive sociological critique of society that there are no losers, only people we forgot to give gold stars.

Beacuse in Ian Robertson's fascist utopia, everyone gets a certificate for proudly participating, and gets to feel secretly ashamed for their unconscious bigotry against themselves. Robertson's is that very English kind of champagne socialism where you get to hate yourself for being excellent.

Finally, in his "Afterword", Robertson comes out from hiding as a pop psychologist and reveals his political colors. Because this is a book about politics. It turns out, he explains, that he is a globalist who supports the rule of the UN legal system over nations. In other words, he is a turncoat.

Why make the UN legal system the ruler over us all? Because power corrupts. Mr Robertson, this poor progressive soul, arrogantly supposes that the answer to power problems is - you got it - bigger and more power! Not only that, but concentrated global in the hands of an unaccountable and demonstrably corrupt United Nations.

Another reviewer on goodreads acutely observed that Mr Robertson critiques the blinding effects of power in a simplistic way which is unintentionally ironic. I agree. He is part of the cultural malaise that maligns the societies that are built around the real success principles - principles which he makes no mention of.

[Adrian Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chock full of anecdotes from history and social experiments, this book tries to explain the contextual nature of power - how winning primes our neurocircuitry to take more risks, narrow our focus, and increase our egocentricity, with all the attendant benefits and disadvantages. More intriguingly, it makes the case for describing all relationships in terms of power plays (whether or not we are conscious of this), and describes the vicious feedback loops involved in power addiction and the resolution of cognitive dissonance. That said, correlation does not equate to causation, and the book does overreach in its sweeping generalisations by attributing everything from corporate greed to the increased life expectancy of Oscar winners to the untrammelled influence of personalities intoxicated with power. Perhaps the author's claim to such omniscience is a manifestation of having bought too much into his own vision as dominant subject-matter expert, and therein lies the irony.

[Lion · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a very interesting topic and I really tried to like this book, because someone I listen to keeps recommending it. I was looking forward to it a lot and expected it to be an easy 5 star rating. Unfortunately I didn't enjoy reading it at all. First I reduced the rating to 4 stars, then to 3.

The content is presented in the form of example stories, which as such is a good way of making a nonfiction book interesting. But this book skips around time and place so wildly that it becomes disorienting. One paragraph there's a lesson about Mike Tyson, while the next asks a moral question relating to the Vietnam war, then we're back with the biology of african fish, skip to Picasso's family troubles, only to seamlessly flip to the greed of business executives in the 90's, after we fill out a personality questionnaire about our decisiveness.* The author presents all these as "clues to answering the riddle", but while the reader is still unaware of what that riddle is, it becomes a bit of a guessing game what the last disparate narrative change was about. When we get "the answer", we've kind of forgotten what clues we were supposed to have remembered from the story 20 pages ago. I'm not sure I really understood most of his conclusions. It was so rambling and disorderly that I hardly remember a single lesson.

*These examples were picked from memory to make a general point and do not appear in the book in that way.

The author is a government professor who comes from a typical left-wing university mindset and his bias made me resent him for big chunks of the experience. The whole book has an undertone of towing the line of ideological class warfare fads: pretty much all example problems are ones caused by capitalist white men, and 'discrimination' must be against blacks or women. Negative examples are usually male and positive ones female. And be weary of "extreme individualism"! He even goes as far as directly stating that he is oblivious how someone can disagree with his statist political opinion (Obamacare) without being irrational. That by itself builds a massive mistrust, and I think there were a few factoids in the book that turned out not to be true, like the one about returning Vietnam soldiers just snapping out of their heroin addictions.

My biggest pet peeve with this book is the constant professor name dropping. It's relentless. Almost every page there's some line like "according to the research of so-and-so professor and colleagues from some socialist university". Jeesh, I don't care about the names of university professors! They all have the same mental outlook anyways, so it doesn't matter who put his name on the "important scientific finding". If that one hadn't done it someone else would have gotten the grant and discovered the same thing. What they "find" is fairly narrowly predetermined by what's ideologically permissible anyways. This must be some sort of quid-pro-quo game of driving up each others reference counts. But please leave me out of your university power games. Put references in the book notes or on a website, for those who want to look them up. It would save like 50 pages. I just wanted to read about neuroscience.
Btw. the practice of quoting academic papers is pointless anyways, because most people are not allowed to read them. These articles are behind a huge paywalls. They are the most unavailable content in humanity.

It took me over a month to summon the interest to finish the last two dozen pages. That's when I changed the rating to 3 stars, because I really didn't enjoy what I read. I wish the book could be rewritten by someone less scrambled, because the subject matter is in theory very interesting. This author is true to the statistical finding that disorderliness correlates strongly with left-wing positions. The incessant fawning over statism is uncanny, considering that the content of the book should be a perfect reasoning for why accepting the use of arbitrary force is a bad idea. If the book had been written by someone less authoritarian, there would have been so many beautiful opportunities for concluding that statism can't ever be benevolent, because wielding power fries "leaders" brains and invariably turns them evil. If they weren't already, because only psycopaths seek those high positions, and only the most insanely driven by the need to control can handle the stress. So having "leaders" is really a prescription for causing destruction. And that is why we have wars instead of nice things. Rulers are biologically driven to spend most of their energy defending their power in their constant palace infighting, and any cecisions they come up with will serve that goal, not the ruled. For example being really worried about invisible threats that give them an excuse to control others lives, but not really worrying that the opportunity cost of their interventions causing poverty for billions of people.
On the last pages the author even endorses manbearpig, removing any doubt about his allegiance to the very power structures he suggests we audit. That's why I don't like reading books by socialist professors, they have spent a lifetime rationalizing why they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them, even if the data suggests something completely different. And they will never conclude anything their bosses don't want to hear. His reason why we need "leaders", to drag us into pointless wars that ruin our lives, is a perfect example of why we shouldn't have them.

[Sinduja Ragunathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read. This one sure has plenty of original and authentic research studies quoted; including ones that even regular psychology enthusiasts might not have heard of. It sticks to the main point of what makes winners and how winning affects them. However, I felt it emphasized more on power rather than other factors.

The only downside of the book is how each chapter has been structured. To support one main point, the author begins with an example, and to support that example, he moves to another example and before you know, it is a series of embedded examples and you pretty much lose track of the main story. Nevertheless, this one is a must-have for lovers of psychology and anyone who wants to know about the psychology of success. The best part of the book is that it is not just theoretical but also offer practical tips and hints without falling to the side of soppy self help.

[Zachary Wrightsman · Rating 2 out of 5]

A good book. I would just have a hard time recommending it just Bc I don’t know who the target audience would be for this one. Maybe someone who study’s psychology. It has some good information but nothing I would say that you could use in a normal persons life. Not what I really expected from the book slightly disappointed. It’s more on explaining the science of winning and less on how to use it (like the title suggests)

[Tobias Isaac · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Taming 'I' may be the greatest challenge for mankind's success."

insightful :-)
Ian Robertson aptly describes power, it's pros and cons, and the necessity for power, as well as the importance of moderation in wielding power...

[Mathew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Started quite practical and interesting, ended up being a weird collection of abstract anecdotes told in pieces, with each piece separated by pieces of other anecdotes. Not sure why this was done, very confusing.

[Fiona · Rating 1 out of 5]

Like swimming through treacle. I really wanted to like this book but struggled with an overly wordy poorly written and superior 'self-help' theme with little supporting evidence.

[Louise Tierney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting research and anecdotes but a bit of a chore to get through.

[Jung · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Winner Effect: The Science of Success and How to Use It" by Ian H. Robertson delves deep into the intricate dynamics of human motivation, achievement, and leadership, offering profound insights into the forces that shape our paths to success.

The book begins by exploring the concept of intrinsic achievement motivation, emphasizing its pivotal role in propelling individuals toward their goals. Through compelling stories like that of Ursula Burns, readers are inspired to recognize the power of ambition and perseverance in overcoming adversity and achieving greatness. Robertson dismantles the myth of genetic fatalism, urging readers to embrace the idea that their destinies are shaped by their beliefs and efforts rather than predetermined by their genes.

Furthermore, Robertson delves into the interplay between chance and environment, highlighting how subtle factors in our surroundings can significantly impact our performance and perception of power. By raising awareness of these influences, readers are empowered to harness the power of the unseen and unlock new opportunities for success.

The book also delves into the psychological impact of power on leaders, emphasizing the importance of balancing confidence with humility and fostering open dialogue within hierarchical structures. Robertson warns against the dangers of unchecked power, urging leaders to imbibe it with a sense of accountability and moral integrity.

Finally, "The Winner Effect" explores the deep-seated human desire for recognition and approval, tracing its evolutionary origins and its impact on our pursuit of success. By acknowledging our intrinsic worth and embracing communal achievements, readers are encouraged to navigate life's journey with resilience and fulfillment.

Overall, "The Winner Effect" offers a comprehensive exploration of the science of success, providing readers with valuable insights and practical strategies for maximizing their potential and achieving their goals. Whether you're striving for personal growth or seeking to lead others to success, this book is an indispensable guide to understanding the forces that drive human achievement.

[Matúš Mikuš · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is a scientist, not a writer of popular science and it shows in the writing. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed the content and while I remain slightly sceptical of the anecdotal nature of many pop sci books, as well as mindful of the difficulty of assessing claims made in psychology research papers, I think the book serves as a decent introduction into the subject of power and I think chewing on the material helped me clarify my relationship with power.

[Kristupas · Rating 3 out of 5]

2-3 stars out of five. I am giving 3 stars, because of legit sources, and some interesting ideas. Unedited review:
The richness, multiverse of contents and feasible sources ( a lot of scientific researches, and factual data) makes this book interesting to read and consider the author's ideas seriously.
Meanwhile, the author uses a style of providing different cases, which are summarized by a main idea-section in the end of the chapter. This worked for me only in a couple of last chapters, but mostly it was annoying,as you want to ask the writer - "just get to the point".
To prove his idea's the author used various researches. But if you read it critically - it often seemed as if he dragged the researches just to get arguments to his idea of 'power' and 'winning'. However the author gave strong ideas and arguments to inspire deeper considerations and thoughts. The biggest practicability of the book is that it may facilitate your own contemplation, self and other people analysis. The author didn't provide concrete ways of "how to use it" (it = success)

SPOILER ALERT:
I have learned, and was reminded of:
*More scientific and deeper outlook on the Mathew's principle. You can get on the spiral of winning, and the same time in the spiral of losing, by improving your dopamine, testosterone receptors (Ill need to look into the dopamine thing more deeper, from anatomical perspective).
* Context, environment is s strong factor to influence your outlook on winning and achieving success (i.e. being a go-getter vs loser). The self-stopping beliefs, like "I can't do it because I am not xx enough (strong, attractive etc.) " makes you a loser, while a winner takes responsibiilty. Having a successful parent can make or break you - if a parent believes, that his achievements are due to his uniquenes - then the child more likely will form self-defeating beliefs and vice versa.
*Strong achievement (like winning Oscars) is beneficial for ones health. It reduces stress, because the person feels better of himself in social context, i.e. feels less shame - which is one of the big stressors.
*Cognitive dissonance is overbearing for humans brain. Therefore, when we make small acts, that are against our initial beliefs - we justify them, so to avoid the dissonance. This manifests in the "Franklin effect" , "Stockholm Syndrome", abusive corporate and family relationships, gradual involvement of others in bullying. For example, if I help the person, or agree with him, it may mean that the person is alright and I like him. And this spirals bit by bit. (But I think this is subtle, and it may be effective, only when there is no strong background in the relationships).
*Power makes us more of hypocrites. When in power we judge other actions based on moral norms and rules (i.e. you shouldn't drive over the speed limit, regardless of your goal) , while we ourselves would be less condemning of our actions, by justifying the actions by the needed outcome (like being late for the meeting). A good example, when corporate CEO's, who's companies are near bankruptcy, were using private jets to attend a meeting regarding their bailout.
*Power makes us less empathetic, and look at people from utility standpoint(i.e. usefulness, person = object). Also it makes us better at creative thinking, executing, getting things done, making better decisions, and healthier, however narrowing the window of risk perception. Thus author argues, that it is beneficial for CEO's to have finance executives and lower level - who will be more perceptive of risk, when having lower social status.
*Mental glass-ceilings. If we have some circumstantial self-defeating belief, and the environment primes to remember it - we will perform worse. (for instance, that people of our family are worse than others at xx)
*People primed with money, or powerful selfish objects (expensive cars) tend to act in a more selfish, less friendly manner. Thus thinking about money often can make you more anti-social.
*Power can make you aggressive towards your underlings - if you feel a threat to your ego (i.e. not competent enough) . Underlings cannot go against you, so they are a good target to lash out.

And many more small nuggets in the book, that I may have forgotten. 3 Stars.

[Daniel Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Every one of us is a winner in some area of life -- we all hold power over at least one other person.

In this book, Robertson poses many questions related to winning: Are we born to win? Is winning a matter of chance and circumstance? What does power do to us? Why do we want to win? Does winning have a downside?

He gives a thorough answer to these questions as he explores the factors that affect winning, but the book does lurch from topic to topic quite quickly and in a way that's jarring.

It's an important contribution to this area of literature, but mainly of interest to people in power roles: leadership and management.

[Elisabeth Schinagl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Die zahlreichen Exkurse machen es nicht immer leicht, den roten Faden zu behalten. Trotzdem bietet das Buch einen neuen, interessanten Blick auf das Phänomen "Macht" in ihren unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen. Dieser Blick auf die Mächtigen dieser Welt und ihre Motivation ist oftmals erschreckend: "Sowie Blair den abgewählten Clinton los war, schmiedeten er und Bush zusammen ein handlungsorientiertes, testosterongetriebenes, interventionistisches Weltbild, ohne sich von warnzeichen an der Peripherie des politischen und militärischen Blickfelds stören zu lassen." (S.135)

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read it a few years ago.

I have mixed opinions on this one, a very diverse book. Sometimes I found some nuggets of truth that resonated with me and I was able to draw parralel lines between the book and my personal life through the examples and stories the author shares, other times the book was dull and boring and the presentation wasn't very good.

The topic I found to be very interesting and it challenged the way I say thing - I like that about this book.

[Kumar Vikramjeet · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't read any book which explained so pragmatically the science behind why we behave in certain ways in certain conditions, as this book did.
The book mainly revolves around power types and it's implications.
It presents many research and experimental data to prove it's point.
In all it's nice read.

[Zack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Big fan of the message; not a huge fan of the ping-pong narrative writing style.

[Anna Joo · Rating 1 out of 5]

Great premise but writing is difficult to understand - ie. giving examples but not explaining them.

[Henrik Haapala · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5/5 very good insights on power and winning. Bedded and intertwined with stories. Power can be good and bad and we can be Influenced in different ways but we can also change.

• Picasso's son: how come successful people don't have successful children? Paulo died at 54 at the same time as having legal battles that left him with a small fraction of the fortune.
• Succession of CEO position to a family member can be bad for the business.
• People in powerful positions experience a belief of control over events that is unrealistic. Example Tony Blair
• People how manage to win get a rush of testosterone and are often able to dominate later challenges. Example Tyson boxing two matches with "tomato cans" opponents and subsequently winning
• T fish: one is attractive and dominant and the other, NT, fish is the opposite submissive and infertile. But the low status one can transform into the dominant by winning.
• Traders: higher morning T predicted higher profits.
• Winning in home territory is even better.
• Winning an Oscar as a life long all clear signal makes your self secure and leads to a much longer life.
• Skilling and the Enron disaster. Ruthless methods and power addicted; the downsides of winning.
• Size of gravestone predicted previous wealth, status and longevity.
• Need for power: bush 63, obama 55.
• P and s power. P: personal goals, s: social or group goals
• Loss of control and social shaming as two big negative phenomena, social evaluative threat, SET, is the worst
• Cognitive dissonance: after the fact rationalizing and aligning thought and behavior in the direction you have already moved in.
• John McCain and the belief of control actually made him resistant to torture. The actual belief that you have the control over your mind is critical.

[Jean-Francois Simard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here are the five main takeaways from The Winner Effect: The Neuroscience of Success and Failure by Ian H. Robertson, based on its key themes and insights:

1. Success Breeds Success: Winning or achieving success triggers a neurochemical response, particularly increased testosterone and dopamine, which boosts confidence, motivation, and risk-taking. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where winners are more likely to keep winning.

2. Power Alters the Brain: Gaining power or status changes brain function, enhancing focus, reducing stress, and increasing assertiveness. However, unchecked power can lead to arrogance, reduced empathy, and poor decision-making.

3. The Loser Effect: Conversely, repeated failures or losses can lower testosterone and serotonin levels, leading to decreased confidence, passivity, and a higher likelihood of future failures. This cycle can trap individuals in a pattern of defeat.

4. Mindset Shapes Outcomes: A growth-oriented mindset, resilience, and the ability to reframe setbacks as opportunities can counteract the loser effect and foster the winner effect. Mental strategies like visualization and self-affirmation can enhance performance.

5. Social and Environmental Influence: Success and failure are heavily influenced by social hierarchies, competition, and environmental factors. Supportive environments and positive feedback can amplify the winner effect, while toxic settings can perpetuate failure.

These insights draw from Robertson’s exploration of neuroscience, psychology, and real-world examples to explain how biological and environmental factors shape success and failure.

[Henry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Actually my major takeaway from this book is how a brain over stimulated with “winning” changes itself - this explains why the moral outrage of many people puzzled about why the wealthy want to continue to be wealthy at the expense of the workers:

- When a person wins continuously, in order to continue the dopamine hit, the person needs to win bigger things down the road (otherwise dopamine withdrawal will happen). Over time, brain chemistry changes:

- The person will see the world as his own arena for their own glory, will have an unshakeable belief in their own judgement, contempt for criticism and advice and lastly, a loss of contact with reality

- And this brings to another paradoxical outcome: a person who wins continuously and wins big will actually get dumber: they will have an egotistical bias towards they could do no wrong, dismiss all the naysayers (due to partially survivorship bias) and double down on erroneous decision until it’s too late

- The author also noted that prolonged winning also leads to the brain’s mirror neuron system being dismissed, leading to a person’s mirror neuron system’s dampening. The direct result is objectification of others thus rendering them lacking empathy

[Reginald · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting summary of the Matthew Principle as manifested in psycho-physiology across species: as an animal (including humans) wins a competition (regardless of its difficulty), the likelihood that that they will win the next competition increases due primarily to the increase in testosterone and dopamine in the animal. Robertson provides useful data and findings from other eminent researchers that proves both interesting and useful. I personally think this book also serves as a scientific primer for Nietzsche’s philosophy, although Nietzsche would definitely scoff at Roberson’s a priori assumption that health (and power, consequentially) falls under a normal distribution—in other words, that one can have “too much power.” But I digress.

Recommended if you’re interested in learning useful details about the free summaries Robertson shares elsewhere (such as YouTube).

[Addie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ian H. Robertson relies on fluff to get this to a dwindling 200 pages. The "selling point" of the book, explaining the winner effect, can be distilled in one page (or perhaps, a small Goodreads review section):

1. Winning leads to more winning (because of dopamine)
2. Losing leads to more losing (because of a lack of dopamine)
3. Just because you win in one sphere, doesn't mean you win in another (common sense)
4. If you win too much, you become overconfident (have you watched any sports movie ever?)

Don't look for a guide on implementation, it is not there. I can humbly offer you one instead:
1. create small wins
2. work out daily (dopamine)
3. believe in yourself (wow! crazy advice)

[Tsinoy Foodies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too much descriptive words and metaphors made this a much lenghtier read than necessary. Better watch the authors lecture…

Testosterone and dopamine (left brain so rightward) - feel powerful, confidence and forward or approach mode

Right brain leftward is avoidance

Winner effect is cumulative because testosterone receivers increase every time you get pumped up by testosterone

Thinking of power and successful and managers stance - anti-anxiety drugs

Sweet spot and balance of hormones = high performance
- job of managers

Affliation < Power

Power > Competence = prone to be bossy and bully

[Cj 888 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very long winded. The author jumps from one example in history to another. Segwaying by saying this doesn't explain the point. Then jumping to the next example in history. So much is cherry picked, and is observed from a third party. Lots of generalities and assumptions. Especially when some of the people that are analyzed from afar are still alive, wouldn't it be more prudent to ask them about it themselves.

There are some interesting points and observations. It does feel like it furthers the analysis on the topic of winning, power, how it effects us.

Are there things can take into day to day life? I think so. So for that it is worth reading.

Would be 3.5/5 I think.

[Mskabatas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yakın dönem siyasetinde ve iş dünyasında isimlerini çokça duyduğumuz, yaptıkları onca hata ve zalimliğe varan uygulamarına şahit olduğumuz, bir insanın nasil ve neden bu kadar tutarsız ve zalim olabileceğine bir turlu açıklama getiremediğimiz, o dilimizin ucundaki düşüncelerin etme kemiğe bürünmesini sağlayan bir çalışma. Hepimizin gerek ebeveyn gerek yönetici ya da abi, dost, arkadaş olarak bir birimiz üzerinde gücümüz var. Bu nedenle kendinizden de bir şeyler bulabileceğiniz bir kitap olarak düşünebilirsiniz.