Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing

by Po Bronson, Ashley Merryman

New York Times Bestseller

Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman's work changes the national dialogue. Beyond their bestselling books, you know them from commentary and features in the New York Times , CNN, NPR, Time , Newsweek , Wired , New York , and more. E-mail, Facebook, and Twitter accounts are filled with demands to read their reporting (such as "How Not to Talk to Your Kids," "Creativity Crisis," and "Losing Is Good for You").

In Top Dog , Bronson and Merryman again use their astonishing blend of science and storytelling to reveal what's truly in the heart of a champion. The joy of victory and the character-building agony of defeat. Testosterone and the neuroscience of mistakes. Why rivals motivate. How home field advantage gets you a raise. What teamwork really requires. It's baseball, the SAT, sales contests, and Linux. How before da Vinci and FedEx were innovators, first, they were great competitors.

Olympians carry Top Dog in their gym bags. It's in briefcases of Wall Street traders and Madison Avenue madmen. Risk takers from Silicon Valley to Vegas race to implement its ideas, as educators debate it in halls of academia. Now see for yourself what this game-changing talk is all about.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Business, Science, Self Help, Leadership, Parenting

352 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Po Bronson has built a career both as a successful novelist and as a prominent writer of narrative nonfiction. He has published five books, and he has written for television, magazines, and newspapers, including Time, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and for National Public Radio's Morning Edition. Currently he is writing regularly for New York magazine in the United States and for The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom.

Po Bronson's book of social documentary, What Should I Do With My Life?, was a #1 New York Times bestseller and remained in the Top 10 for nine months. He has been on Oprah, on every national morning show, and on the cover of five magazines, including Wired and Fast Company. His first novel, Bombardiers, was a #1 bestseller in the United Kingdom. His books have been translated into 18 languages. Po speaks regularly at colleges and community "town hall" events. He is a founder of The San Francisco Writer's Grotto, a cooperative workspace for about 40 writers and filmmakers. From 1992 to 2006 he was on the Board of Directors of Consortium Book Sales & Distribution. He lives in San Francisco with his family.

from pobronson.com

Reviews

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are a coach, or business owner/leader this is a must read book. It breaks down what at team needs to succeed, how a team best works together - in an office on and off the field.

Any book that opens with novice parachute jumpers, ballroom dancers and a recap of Jason Lezak’s anchor leg of the 2008 Olympics 4X100 freestyle relay draws you in for the get go. (Especially if you appreciate the sport of swimming!)

The authors, Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman were basically on a quest to find out what it is that makes competitors tick. How people respond to challenges, rise to the occasion or flop. How they work individually and as teams.

In a time of decreased concentration on competitiveness and more collaboration on the field - or the ever present ‘everyone gets a trophy’ mantra - social scientists want to know if people benefit from competition and if we’re hard wired for it. The short answer is yes and yes. And, competition facilitates improvement (for about 50%). Some people don’t benefit from competition and likely they self select out of it (in sports) and have a disadvantage in other arenas.

An interesting premise that has been found from years of looking at competition is that people need a ‘fighting’ chance. Actually, women are more in tune with what that chance may be and don’t engage in competition unless it seems likely they have a chance. Less than a quarter of our elected officials are women - not because they are incapable - but women simply won’t waste their time running for an office if there is no point. Men, on the other hand - whether it’s a political office, or a gambling scenario - will throw their hat in. It seems, women look at the reality of the situation and gauge the potential and balance that with the effort needed while men see the outcome - the prize- and go for it.

Their discussions included SAT test takers in different venues, rivalries, competitive focus and the Matthew Effect - attributed to the gospel of Matthew, home field advantage, micro-management, mastery of skill, gender influence on the stock market, productivity and the like.

It was a very engaging read that covered topics ranging from ‘when the stakes go up’, to productivity and professionalism. The compared and contrasted worriers with warriors, as they called the groups of people and which groups prevail in which situations.

Testosterone and other hormones were discussed. How do they play a roll when people feel threatened or challenged? How do people react to loved ones in the crowd watching? Will it benefit everyone? Etc.

The detailed discussion of childhood development, risk taking, and learning to ‘play to win’ versus ‘play not to lose’ was enlightening. You can see yourself in the book.

[Mihai Pintilie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Top dog summary

Success in competition requires taking risks that are normally held back by fear

Competition brings a new level of gears

Sense of teritorism gets you more confident control efficacy, teritorism brings security, a sense of identity etc. Its instantaneous
If you come early you stand a better chance of winning
High expectations can push you in your head

Supervision is bad when you practice, audience is good when you have mastery
A manager should supervise its people randomly because it creates alertness while in the same time it's not a nuisance to their performance

We are incredibly susceptible to reward and punishment from what we see around, 13 microseconds of input results in subconscious conclusions

Worriers and warriors have different compt structures, some handle stress better because they clear dopamine faster

Women under stress focus more on the emotional ques, men under stress tune them out

Keep score on every possible level in order to get a killer team

Women get into competition when they stand a good chance of winning, men are more prone to get in bold competitions

Boys see competition much more than girls do so its better to get boys in a medium with very good teachers but be wary of outstanding peers because they will see as if they suck at life whereas with girls its not that problem, girls can perform best in hyper competitive mediums
Boys are in for finite games were there is a clear goal

Men focus on wins women on the odds

Females stick to groups of 2 while men in packs because thats how we evolved, thats why we are specialised and why we are competitive whereas women are more careful

Men evolved such that in a group they may have disputes with one another but the aim of the group is the most important
Women evolved such that they share the same amount, they are fearful of competition in pairs, they focus on similarities

Younger siblings are more competitive

The more you guard risk the more mistakes you ll make
Just dont lose this one results in weaker results

When going for the gain you get into comfortable awareness

Prevention orientated works for deducting benefits

Social comparison is so powerful, more powerful than deluding yourself that you will win which is again a very powerful tactic

We spend 12% of our thoughts daily comparing ourselves to others
We spend time thinking about counter measures

Positive thinking is only good for motivation, but it makes you not anticipate perils and performe worse
Visualizing scenarios for understanding positive improvements in the future is the way to go

In a competition scenariu you get adrenaline which boosts your concentration and peaks performance
In a threat state you get noradreline which burns glucose very fast and you get beaten down very fast, you then have no chance of winning

Testosterone makes you hyper rational, it boosts motivation and decouples the emotional responses and fear uncertainty

Cortisol is not causing stress, cortisol repairs stress signals, cortisol is an indicator that there has been stress

A team is stronger than the sum of its parts
When in a team the efforts and attitude and hard work of your team members makes your brains chemistry think it was you in their place


60% of the team s success is determined by team members':
Introduction
Compelling goal
Competence

Topcoder set up competitions for programmers and attracted the best ones and now its worth 200 mil
Competition stimulates introverts while cooperation extroverts

Having a healthy attitude towards playing is very important! In the end you need to chose your competition and leave the rest, not everything has to be a competition.

Winning and loosing are both important and should be seen both as a way forward towards progress.

We like to see where are our fear limits, our pain limits and operate there even go beyond that!

[Cav · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Competition makes the world go round. It is the engine of evolution and the foundation of democracy. It prompts innovation, drives global markets, and puts money in the pocket..."

Top Dog was an informative read. If you are interested in the field of high performance, then this one should be on your list.

Authors Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman also wrote the New York Times bestseller NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children. Additionally, they’ve written for Newsweek, New York, the Guardian, and numerous other publications. For their reporting, Bronson and Merryman have won nine national awards, including the PEN Center USA Literary Award for Journalism; the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Award for Science Journalism; an “Audie” from the Audio Publishers Association; and two Clarion Awards.

Ashley Merryman and Po Bronson :


The authors lay out the book's thesis early on, saying:

"You can pitch a million baseballs to your child until he perfects his swing— but wait until he faces a pitcher who wants him to miss. Practicing the piano may develop finger dexterity, but that alone won’t remedy the sick twisting feeling in your stomach the first time you are in front of an audience.
To be successful, you have to be able to perform when it counts. You have to be able to handle that pressure. You need to not wilt in the competition.
We wanted to know—what makes someone good at that?
What the ballroom dancing study tells us is that the stress of competition doesn’t go away with experience. The inescapable conclusion is that years and years of practice are not, automatically, enough. In addition to the deliberate practice, success also depends on how well people compete. It hangs on how well they handle that psychoendocrine stress response, manage it, and even harness it. What we’ll learn later in this book is that everyone has that stress response, but we can interpret it differently, which drastically affects our performance.
Ten years of practice may make you an expert. But even then, it just gets you in the door. You’ll still have to dance against other experts—most of whom have put in their ten years, too. The winner is not the person who practiced more. It’s who competes better. It’s who lives up to the moment when the band is playing, the lights are bright, and judges are watching.
The same fundamental skills that matter in edgework turn out to matter in any competitive situation: the ability to avoid being paralyzed by fear, and the capacity to focus attention.
And the truth is, nobody puts in ten years of experience before he starts competing. The world doesn’t work that way. We all are thrown into competitive situations, long before we’ve had enough practice. Our results are still judged; our fate is still determined by how we do. To survive these trials, we need more than practice. We need competitive fire.
This book is an investigation into competitive fire—what it is, and how to get it."

They also break down the "threat vs "challenge" dichotomy:

"Another way to describe the difference between the two kicker scenarios is to label the first as a threat and the second as a challenge.
In a threat situation, the expectations are very high. You know you’re being judged, and you feel you can’t make a single mistake. Despite the intensity of the competition, the fear of mistakes invokes that prevention-orientation: you’re trying to prevent catastrophe rather than initiate a success. Competitors feel more anxious, less energetic, and avoidant.
Heightened awareness that others are judging you is manifested in the “mentalizing system”—increased neural activity in four discrete regions of the brain. One of those regions is the medial prefrontal cortex, which signals that decision making has become more conscious and slower, less automatic.
Another region is the left temporoparietal junction (l-TPJ). Constantly scanning for the unfamiliar to be guarded against, this region flashes brightly, indicating increased wariness. Additionally, the anterior cingulate cortex—the ACC—is constantly on the watch for errors in judgment.
A threat situation alters the way the brain sensitizes to risk and reward. The amygdala, deep in the limbic system, is highly attuned to fearful stimuli. The risks of a situation become prominent in the mind. Meanwhile, the brain’s reward center—though activated by the opportunity—is still the lesser partner.
All this changes in a challenge frame of mind. In a challenge state, you’re not expected to be perfect, and not expected to win, but you have a fighting chance to rise to the occasion. You’re free to take risks and go for it, which activates the gain-orientation system. A cascade of hormones is released that suppresses l-TPJ activity, and the brain gets comfortable, as if everything is familiar. Decision making shifts back to automatic mode. The hormones dampen the amygdala, making you fearless, and they juice up the reward networks, making you highly attuned to the spoils of victory. Competitors breathe freely, feel energized, and approach opportunities.
While top competitors do need to learn to perform in threat situations— because they are sometimes unavoidable—most competitors will perform better in a challenge situation.
And in many situations, changing the framing of a task from threat to challenge is all it may take for success..."

Some more of what is talked about in these pages includes:
• The "home field" advantage
• Performance during practice vs competition
• Genetics of performance under pressure
• Sex differences in competitive behavior
• Sibling differences in competitive behaviour
• "Rough and tumble" play.
• 2D 4D finger digit ratios and success
• Playing to Win and Playing Not to Lose
• Positive psychology
• The role of hormones in performance psychology; testosterone, cortisol, and oxytocin
• Mirror circuitry in the brain
• Teamwork vs individual competition; Linux


**************************

As briefly mentioned above, I enjoyed this one. The book is presented in an engaging, readable format that should see it accessible to the average reader.
I would recommend it to anyone interested.
4 stars.

[Marissa Morrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

What I liked about NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children was that it was filled with useful advice (acknowledge every babble to increase a baby's vocabulary, praise effort instead of intelligence to help children achieve, etc.). I hoped that this book would likewise give parents and teachers clear recommendations about how to promote healthy competition, but this is more of a "hmm, I never knew that" kind of book than a set of how-tos. Also, the authors include lots of sports metaphors and anecdotes, which bored me so much that I skipped right past them.

Some interesting things I learned: My finger lengths would suggest I have an entrepreneur's spirit but that's likely negated by the lack of competitive fire caused by my not having siblings.

The gender differences are most interesting. Women feel like they are competing at a low level all the time, but men are more likely to get fired up for a specific challenge. Bad odds will inspire a man to compete; women don't get involved in competitions unless they think they actually might win. Surrounding one's self with higher achievers (for instance, at an elite school) will inspire females to achieve more themselves whereas males do better with peers who are just slightly better.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Focus is on the importance of competition rather than the "10,000 hours of practice" that is so often discussed post-Gladwell. Completion requires taking risks that are held back by fear, and can teach us moral behavior - the Greeks called it aretas, attaining excellence thru competition.
Differences between men and women were fascinating - women form social bonds in pairs, or dyads, and don't like to compete within that relationship (this is why women more likely to turn on a previously trusted friend after only one incident). Women are less likely to take risk when the odds are low (men overestimate their chances more frequently), more likely to compete when odds are even or better. Women better at differentiating what to care about enough to compete. And a study from Univ of Texas showed that women analysts on Wall Street were more accurate, and had more divergent estimates vs men.
Playing to win very different than playing not to lose. Being stressed before competition is good, and if framed as a positive can improve performance. The stress boosts testosterone, which does not lead to aggression - it leads to intensity and focus (hyperrationallity), but also to argumentativeness, where sense of right an wrong intensifies into fury. "To harness the power of testosterone, the rules of what earns social regard must be changed. Change the culture, and the high-Test people will change what they do to earn respect."
Positive thinking is often not helpful, having understanding an respect for the opponent or the obstacle to be faced is critical. Anger can be positive if it is controlled.
Teams - they don't need to be friends, and the stronger their star, the harder everyone works to keep up. Renaissance artists competed, development of Linux was competitive. Fate of teams is 90% done before the work begins - 60% is efficacy of leader, appropriately challenging goal, and skills of members. 30% is initial introduction and how responsibilities are divided. The only strategy that works is one that focuses on role clarification - who does what when pressure gets intense.

Study showed that the most successful entrepreneurs had ring finger 10-20% longer than index finger. Correlations found with assertiveness, risk taking, spacial ability.
FedEx founder Fred Smith kept his company alive turning his last $5,000 into $32,000 in Vegas (in 1973), enough to pay for another week of jet fuel and enough time to line up financing.
Cortisol regulates testosterone, during competition and particularly when we lose - burst of cortisol makes you care less about the outcome.
Not a Coach K fan but his attitude about star players, that he needs to be the "best player's best friend" because being the star is lonely was insightful. Managers and coaches need to focus on their stars to keep them motivated and this pull along the rest.

[Lindsay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disclaimer: I won this book from a GoodReads First Reads contest.

I generally like books like this: ones who break down a concept that's pretty basic and explain it using scientific research and other types of studies. The one issue I had with it is that it seemed to oversimplify some things while glossing over others at the same time. Just when I really got into a chapter, it seemed like it was over too quickly, without me reaching the aha! moment. It also ended on page 240 despite this being counted as book over 300 pages. The remaining 100+ pages are bibliography, which is great for looking up the citations for journal articles you might want to follow up on, but it's also indicative of why I only gave this book 3 stars. With that many references, this book should have been way longer than 240 pages, and I shouldn't be left feeling cheated out of content.

It was an enjoyable read, and for those with zero scientific background, I think it will be a hit. I was going to rate it 3.5 stars, but as a loyal MSU basketball fan, I had to take off 1/2 star for including an interview with Coach K. Yuck.*

*Ok, I'm joking about that.**

**Or am I?

[Jjudyfl · Rating 1 out of 5]

I won this book from GoodReads, and am sorry to say i did not care for it.
There has never been any doubt in my mind that competition in the marketplace is a good thing. Competition produces shampoos, for instance, that clean better and rinse out better than brand X. But must all shampoos out there be on top ? I dislike seeing so many of MY favorite items disappear from store shelves because they only have room for the TOP...
Having fairly stated that, I cast a more observing and studied look at how this book could help ME.
IT didn't. Boring. That is a one word review. "info," "science," and "history," appeared to have been copied, condensed, and typed up.
There were several other books competing for my reading, but I continued to the finish of TOP DOG. Perhaps it was just the plunk, plunk, plunk style of delivery. Perhaps I was having a bad couple of days. Perhaps others will find value. Hope so.
I wanted some clever thoughts and ideas for this period of my life. When I finally got to page 240 and saw that the next 95 pages were . just a listing of sources and an index, I happily closed the door on this DOG.

[Amy Alkon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ashley Merryman and Po Bronson's "Top Dog" is a myth-busing book, explaining that competition isn't about killing the other side; it's about getting into situations that drive you to be the best you can be.

We like to simplify competing down to winning versus losing but the truth is, there are numerous nuances that go into what makes a person a winner or loser of some competition or even in their day to day work on the job. These nuances and the research behind them fill this book, which is clearly written and a pleasure to read. This book will help you identify the kind of competitor you are, why some people breeze through competition and others choke, and how you can use the research on choking and competing to transform yourself to do and be the best you can.

[Lukasz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Książke przesłuchałem w formie audiobooka, lektorem był jeden ze współautorów, Po Bronson. Mocno zaangażowany w temat psychologii wygrywania i przegrywania, widać, że podchodzi z entuzjazmem i pasją do tematu.
Początek książki zaczyna się dość nietypowo. Autor przytacza nam badanie wykonane w Niemczech, które graniczyło z etycznością, mianowicie, w badaniu chodziło o zmierzenie poziomu stresu u ludzi, którzy po raz pierwszy w życiu skakali ze spadochronem z wysokości kilku tysięcy metrów i następnie kilkukrotnie potarzali ten skok. Następnie autor przytacza inne badanie, gdzie badano poziom hormonów stresu u doświadczonych profesjonalnych tancerzy podczas zawodów tanecznych. Okazuje się, że amator skoków spadochronowych po kilku skokach, mimo, że każdy skok związany jest z pewnym ryzykiem utraty zdrowia, lub nawet życia, przeżywa mniejszy fuzjologiczny stress niż profesjonalny tencerz przed zawodami, w których bierze udział od ponad dziesięciu lat. Morał wypływający z tych badań jest dość prosty: sytuacja związana z rywalizacją powoduje spory stres, i z biegiem lat, mimo wieloletniego treningu, wieloletniego udziału w zawodach poziom stresu wcale się nie redukuje, tak jak to ma miejsce na przykład w przypadku sportu ekstremalnego, rekreacyjnego skakania ze spadochronem. Tu po kilku skokach poziom stresu znacznie się obniża.

Współczesny człowiek, homo sapiens, stworzył taki system społeczny, który polega na ciągłej tywalizacji. To jest fakt i chyba tego nie jesteśmy w stanie zmienić. Ale, to, że właśnie powstał wielu tysiącach lat taki system społęczny, nie oznacza tragedii dla samego homo sapiens. Wręcz przeciwnie, bez zdrowej rywalizacji ludzkość nie posuwałaby się do przodu. Bez rywalizacji następojue regres człowieka jako jednostki. Regres społęczeństwa. Myślę, że ten temat przerobiliśmy w Polsce jako państwo socjalistyczne i definitywnie roziwane zostały wątpliwości, przez nasze doświadczenie socjalizmu, że rywalizacja jest potrzebna dla naszego dobra.

Sam osobiście sporadycznie oglądam rywalizacje sportową w telewizji (teraz o wiele rzadziej niż kiedyś) ale opis finałowego wyścigu sztafety pływackiej na olimpiadzie w Pekinie, który zawarty jest w książce zrobił na mnie duże wrażenie.

Polecam serdecznie ten filmik na youtube. Obejrzałem go kilkukrotnie. Wiele osób zna Michael Phelpsa za zdobycie rekordowej ilości złotych medali na olimpiadzie. Jednak prawdziwym bohaterem amerykańskiej sztafety pływackiej jest Jason Lezak i o nim autorzy dość sporo piszą w książce. Lezak to wyjątkowy sportowiec. Kapitan, weteran pływackiej drużyny amerkańskiej. Cieszący się wielkim autorytetem swoich kolegów z drużyny. Ciągnie do sukcesu drużynę jak przysłowiowy koń pociągowy, pływając w sztafecie osiąga o wiele lepszy wynik niż w zawodach indywidualnych. Niesamowite w tych zawodach sztafety 4x100 w pływaniu na olimpiadzie w Pekinie jest to, że dzięki niewyobrażalnej sile i motywacji Lezak pokonał Francuza Bernarda, mimo, że nawet komentatorzy skreślili jego szanse sporo przed zakończeniem sztafety. Lezak "pociągnął" za sobą pięć zespołów tak aby wszystkie pięc pokonały aktualny rekord świata. Czwarty i piąty zespół mimo, że nie zdobył medalu ma mimo to powód do dumy, gdyż też im się udało pokonać rekord świat! To taki drobny sukces na otracie łez po tym jak znaleźli się poza podium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziV6t...


Kończąca się rywalizacja versus nieskończona rywalizacja
Autorzy w książce przytaczają różne przukłady rywalizacji, kończącą się i nieskończoną. Zawody pływackie na olimpiadzie do rywalizacja która ma jasny, definitywny koniec. Ale rywalizacja, na przykład na miejscu pracy, rywalizacja między firmami, krajami, (zdrowa rywalizacja -- wcale nie chodzi tu o wyścig szczurów), to rywalizacjia nie mająca definitywnego końca. Innymi słowy, człowiek musi nauczyć się radzić sobie również z niekończącą się rywalizacją, bo ta jest po prostu częścią naszego życia i to jak sobie z nią radzimy ma bezpośredni wpływ na jakość naszego życia.


Autorzy książki podkreślają, że celem uczestniczenia w rywalizacji nie jest samo zwycięstwo. Celem uczestniczenia w rywalizacji jest osiągnięcie i zmotywowanie siebie do jak najlepszego wyniku. I faktycznie, uczestniczenie w rywalizacji wyzwala hormony stresu, sztuka polega na tym, aby wykorzystać to na naszą korzyść, tak jak zrobił to na przykład Jason Lezak.


Mózg a rywalizacja.
U niektórych w mózgu działają enzymy ktore redukują szybko poziom dopaminy. Tacy ludzie wręcz potrzebują stresu i napięcia aby optymalnie funkcjonować, bez stresu funkcjonują suboptymalnje. Z drugiej strony są ludzie którzy są paraliżowani przez stres i funkcjonują optymalnie tylko bez stresu. Okazuje się, że biologia mózgu ma kluczowe znaczenie jeśli chodzi o to jak podchodzimy do rywalizacji.


Różnice płciowe w podejściu do rywalizacji.
Okazuje sie że ze względu na to, niezależnie od przyczyn, że pewne obszary mózgu, inaczej się rozwijają u kobiet i mężczyzn. W efekcie kobiety i mężczyźni reagują odmiennie na sytuacje stresowe. Autorzy w książce opisują przykład trenera piłkarskiego który trenował przez 30 lat jedną z czołowych uniwersyteckich kobiecych drużyn piłkarskich, na 30 sezonów w 21 sezonach zdobył mistrzostwo. Okazuje sie ze kluczem sukcesu tej kobiecej drużyny piłkarskiej było to w jaki sposób trener uczył piłkarki radzenia sobie ze stresem podczas rozgrywek z trudnym przeciwnikiem. Trener uczył podejścia do zawodów tak aby ich stres nie paraliżował lecz wręcz pomagał osiągnąć lepszy wynik. Tajemnica sukcesu właśnie polegała na budowaniu silniejszych relacji w zespole oraz relacji miedzy trenerem i zespołem. Na przykład, w czasie przerwy trener dość serdecznie, ciepło traktował piłkarki. To powodowało lepszy wynik na koniec meczu. Mężczyzni potrzebują innego podejścia. W przerwie ten sam trener, trenując męską drużynę piłkarską rzucał epitetami, w ekstremalnych sytuacjach był w stanie nawet wyrzucic kosz przez okno. Po zastosowaniu epitetów, ostrych słow i nerwów piłkarze kończyli mecz z lepszym wynikiem.


Równe szanse, dlaczego kobiety tego potrzebują, dlaczego mężczyźni nie.
Dlaczego jest mniej kobiet w polityce i w biznesie na wyższych stanowiskach? Okazuje się, że kobiety bardziej strategicznie podchodzą do rywalizacji. Badania potwierdzają ze uczestniczą w rywalizacji tylko wtedy kiedy wiedza ze szanse są przynajmniej mnie wiecej równe. Kobiety w przypadku mniejszego prawdopodobieństwa niż 50% wygrania rezygnują z rywalizacji.
Ale czy kobiety rzeczywiście mniej rywalizują niz mężczyźni? Nie, okazuje sie, ze kobiety rywalizują w tak samym stopniu jak mężczyźni tylko robią to na innych polach, innych dziedzinach. Generalnie mówiąc kobiety bardziej realistycznie oceniają sytuacje niz mężczyźni.Do rywalizacji wybierają dziedziny i pola gdzie czują duże prawdopodobieństwo odniesienia sukcesu.


Jak działają dobre szkoły?
Dobrzy nauczyciele, dobra infrastruktura, dobrze zorganizowany program nauczania oraz zdrowa rywalizacja miedzy uczniami. To rzeczy cechujące dobre szkoły. Bez jednego z tych składników szkoła nie może osiągnąć wysokiego poziomu. Ciekawe jest jednak to jaki wpływ ma rywalizacja na człopców i na dziewczyny. Okazuje sie jednak ze dziewczyny lepiej radzą sobie w dobrych szkołach, chłopcy z wynikami poniżej przeciętnej dość często odpadają i nie radzą sobie w przeciwieństwie do dziewczyn. Morał tych badań jest taki, że niezależnie od predyspozycji i umiejętności dziewczynę można zawsze wysłać do najlepszej szkoły. W przypadku chłopca lepiej wysłać go do szkoły gdzie będzie przynajmniej przeciętnym lub ponadprzeciętnym uczniem. Chłopcy odpadają z rywalizacji, nie radzą sobie w rywalizacji jeśli są poniżej przeciętnej, w przeciwieństwie do dziweczyn.


Naturalna selekcja sięgająca okresu kiedy człowiek prowadził koczowniczy tryb życia prawdopodobnie ukształtowała biologię mężczyzn w tem sposób ze ci głownie funkcjonują, rywalizują w grupie, (polowanie na dzikie zwierzęta odbywało sie w grupie) natomiast kobiety ewidentnie preferują system społeczny oparty na parach. Ta oddzielna biologia rywalizacji powoduje iż mężczyźni inaczej reagują na sytuacje związane z rywalizacja niz kobiety, ktore są o wiele bardziej ostrożne w podejmowaniu rywalizacji i podejmują sie jej tylko wtedy kiedy wiedza ze maja duża szanse wygranej.

To czy mieliśmy starsze rodzeństwo wydaje sie mieć duży wpływ na nas i na to jak podchodzimy do rywalizacji w życiu dorosłym. To w jaki sposób nasi rodzice sie z nami bawili jak byliśmy małymi dziećmi tez nie jest bezznaczenia. Szczególnie ważne są przepychanki, siłowanki i zapasy od około 3 roku życia do około 10 roku.

Według jakiej strategii gramy, czy żeby wygrać lub czy żeby nie przegrać?
Jeśli gramy po to aby tylko utrzymać dobrą pozycję to skazani jesteśmy na przegraną. Trzeba grać po to aby odnieś sukces, aby wygrać. Okazuje sie, że przyjmowanie postawy mocno defensywnej częściej kończy się przegraną niż sukcesem. W defensywie popełniamy więcej błędów, unikamy ryzyka. Jeden błąd powoduje kolejny, dochodzi do reakcji łańcuchowej popełniania błędów.


Popełnianie błędów pozwala nam sie uczyć, ale tylko w ramach treningu, w sytuacji gdzie uczestniczymy w rywalizacji jeden błąd prowadzi do kolejnego, nasz mózg staje sie sztywny podczas rywalizacji. Ale nie w każdym przypadku.
Istnieją dwa style rywalizacji, orientacja na zwycięstwie i orientacja na uniknięciu przegranej. W zależności jaki mamy styl zwrócenie uwagi na błędy albo pomaga albo prowadzi do popełnienia kolejnych błędów.
Odkrycie własnego styli rywalizacji jest kluczowe gdyż często idzie w parze lub tez nie z zawodem wykonywanym przez nas. Albo gramy po to żeby zwyciężyć ale wtedy podejmujemy większe ryzyko, albo gramy po to aby nie przegrać, wtedy jesteśmy ostrożniejsi z natury i unikamy ryzyka. W wykonywaniu niektórych zawodów umiejetność podejmowania ryzyka i radzenia sobie z podwyższonym ryzykiem jest ważna, znowu w innych zawodach kluczowe jest unikanie ryzyka. To ważne, ze istnieją te dwa rożne profile rywalizacji. Najlepiej jednak jeśli wypracowaliśmy oby dwa i umiemy je zastosować zależnie od sytuacji.
Kluczowe jest aby trener rozumiał styl rywalizacyjny swojego wychowanka. Korygowanie błędów, zwracanie na błędy podczas rywalizacji u jednej osoby ma efekt pozytywny, u innej ma tragiczne skutki.


Lęk poznawczy vs. Lęk somatyczny.
Badania potwierdzają, ze sa rozne rodzaje leku i roznie one wpływają na nas. lek somatyczny wydaje sie byc wyjatkowo nieprzyjemny, ale daje sie kontrolowac, i daje sie go wykorzystac na nasza korzysc. wiekszy problem wydaje sie byc z lekiem poznawczym. Jeśli ten się pojawia, nie jesteśmy pracować nad sobą, nasze zdoloności poznawcze są mocno ograniczone.

Ważną role odgrywa testosteron. Bez testosteronu człowiek nie ma w sobie energii do działania.

Sprawczość.
Autorzy wspominają pod koniec książki bardzo ważne zjawisko. Chodzi o oprawczosc. To wazna kompetencja ktora rozwija sie w dzieciństwie kiedy dziecko uczy sie kreatywności poprzez branie udzial w zdrowej rywalizacji. Autorzy opisuja to zjawisko na przykladzie transformacji systemowej bylego NRD. Sprawczosc to podstawowa kompetencja ktora pomaga nam funkcjonkwac we współczesnym swiecie i powoduje wykorzystanie naszego pełnego potencjału i satysfakcji życiowej.

Co bylo najpierw, olimpada czy demokracja? Oby dwa wynalazki pochodzą ze starożytnej Grecji. Z historii wiemy, że rozrywki olimlijskie o 200 lat wyprzedziły powstanie demokracji. Można wysunąć wniosek, że rywalizacja sportowa była ważnym prekursorem demokracji.

Wreszcie autorzy podsumowują style zwyciężania oraz przegrywania. Zwyciężanie jak i przegrywanie to tylko krótki przystanek na drodze do nieustannego samoulepszenia.

Świetna książka. Zawiera wiele ważnych wniosków. Oparta na najnowszych badaniach naukowych. Autorzy wykonali kawał dobrej roboty. Ważne jest też to, że książka zawiera sporo opisów sytuacji, opisów osób, case studies. Wszystko jest opisane w taki sposób, że mnie słuchało się tego audiobooka z wielką przyjemnością.

[Wilde Sky · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book presents various studies that have been completed on competitions / tests and which individuals perform best and why.

I found some of the details contained in this book really surprising.

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is some useful stuff in the first 2/3rds, but a lot of it (though not all) boils down to biological materialism. They constantly try to say that's not the conclusion one should come to, because habits of the mind can effect your performance quality, but then they say those are tied to genes or hormones or chemicals. The last 1/3rd of the book is kind of "meh," as they say. 3 stars for being an average pseudo-science / Malcolm Gladwell Journalism style book.

[Sharon · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. I really loved Bronson and Merryman's "Nurture Shock" and still bring it up in conversation frequently. I think I probably would have enjoyed "Top Dog" more if I didn't have such high expectations from "Nurture Shock." "Top Dog" is well-written and very interesting. It gave me a lot to think about, especially in relation to Alfie Kohn's views on competition and Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers." However, one of the things that I enjoyed about "Nurture Shock" was that each chapter was a completely different topic that somehow related to a central theme of childrearing. "Top Dog" didn't have that same kind of variety and at times I felt like all the chapters kind of blended together.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

--Most of us perform better when at least some competition is involved.
--We need good relationships with team mates to do our best--but fraternizing with the competition may not be a good idea.
--Egalitarian teams aren't a good idea.
--The 25% of the population that performs worse when competing improve when they are told that that rush of adrenalin and fear they feel may help, not hinder, their performance.

And on and on. What we "know" about competition isn't necessarily borne out in research. This is a great read for leaders, athletes, musicians, educators, etc., to improve their ability to set up teams, tasks and situations to maximize everyone's performance.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love the books by these authors. I don't know how well-founded the research is behind it, but I can absolutely say that I played my best tennis game of the season after reading it. I still lost, but by a much smaller margin than I usually do.

Anyways, interesting write up on the science of competition. Held my interest the whole way through.

[Rosalind Wiseman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I always value the work of these two writers so much. What I enjoy the most is reading all of their work and seeing how their thinking evolves over the years. But most important, is that Bronson and Merryman challenge us to reevaluate our assumptions.

[Jason Chiang · Rating 2 out of 5]

Looking forward to completing this book. I'm very interested in what motivates people and also looking for practical insights on how to improve my response to and getting comfortable with and even embracing stressful situations.

[Sergei_kalinin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Довольно неплохая книга о плюсах и минусах конкуренции; много любопытных идей об адаптивной (конструктивной) и неадаптивной конкуренции.

Подробная рецензия в моём блоге: http://s-kalinin.blogspot.ru/2014/03/...

[Leonidas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Top Dog

Blend together epic story-telling, and scientific evidence, and you get the REAL reasons behind becoming a Champion, aka. a Top Dog!

From homefield advantages, to testosterone, to the advantages of teamwork, contests, and innovators, the authors find out EXACTLY what it takes to be a winner.

Here are my selective perceptions on the topic through quotes:

"You can pitch a million baseballs to your child until he perfects his swing - but wait until he faces a pitcher who wants him to miss. Practicing the piano may develop finger dexterity, but that alone won't remedy the sick twisting feeling in your stomach the first time you are in front of an audience.

To be successful, you have to be able to perform when it counts. You have to be able to handle that pressure. You need to not wilt in the competition."

"Adaptive competitiveness is characterized by perseverance and determination to rise to the challenge, but it's bounded by an abiding respect for the rules. It's the ability to feel genuine satisfaction at having put in a worthy effort, even if you lose. People with adaptive competitiveness don't have to be the best at everything - they only strive to be the best in the domain they train for."

"Maladaptive competitiveness is characterized by psychological insecurity and displaced urges. It's the individual who can't accept that losing is part of competing; it's the person who competes when others around him are not competing"

"Some people love to compete. For them, competing makes an activity more fun. A study of distance runners, for instance, reveals that those who compete at the national level (for money, medals, and glory) have the greatest intrinsic motivation."

"Competition doesn't kill creativity: it facilitates creative output by supplying motivational drive. Competition also teaches people to be comfortable with conflict and opposition, which is a necessary building block for developing the creative psyche."

"Those who focus on what they'll win choose to compete far more. Those who focus on their odds of winning choose to compete far less".

"You'll learn that women choose to compete less than men do, but it's not because men are bigger risk takers per se - it's that men tend to be overconfident of their abilities and thus are blind to some of the risk. This gets men into more contests, but it doesn't necessarily help them win."

"[There is] a distinction between finite and infinite games. Finite games have a beginning and an ending, with the goal of winning. Between games there is recuperation and restoration. Infinite games never end, and since no winner is ever declared, the goal instead is to get ahead. With infinite games, there is no end to the comparisons, only a waxing and waning of competitive intensity. It turns out that women handle infinite competitions better than men, often because they find ways to recuperate while still competing. Men, unable to shield their egos, do best in shorter competitions of a discrete length."

"Becoming a better competitor is about controlling your psychological state, which in turn alters your underlying physiology. Most simply put, if you can control your fear, then you can control your biology, too."

"Being told to chill out, relax, and think positively is fundamentally counterproductive for some people."

"The mere presence of another person doing the same task makes someone work harder. In the right circumstances, competition teases out people's best."

"Competing head-to-head, on average took a couple seconds off a child's time."

"The real benefit of competition is not winning - it is improved performance. Competition liberates, or generates, hidden reserves of additional effort. Competitors discover an extra gear. And in the right circumstances, this happens even if you ultimately don't win the contest. Competition facilitates improvement."

"Cadets with lower grades improved academically if they socialized with, and spent more time around cadet friends with high GPAs."

"The sales contests boosted productivity from 10% to 50%."

"The low-performing cadets surrounded by top students who made them feel inadequate day in and day out. Rather than cajoling them to work harder, the endless competition to an impossible benchmark was defeating. These low-performers therefore created a clique - finding refuge in their identity as low-performers - but this safety inadvertently gave them permission to not excel."

"When there are only a few people in the race, we put our foot on the gas, working harder and harder to outpace our competitors. And the competition becomes very personal, a referendum on our own ability."

"What's easy to overlook is that sometimes, all any competitor needs is an equal match and a fighting chance. That, alone, can do wonders to revive his spirit."

"The home advantage is an evolutionary one, rooted in territorialism - a deeply rooted, innate need to control one's space. And once this sense of territorialism is activated, you become more competitive; you're more willing to challenge potential intruders. You're more confident, more motivated, and more aggressive when you perceive a potential threat. You have a higher sense of self-efficacy, and controlling the environment in a way that best suits your needs."

"Performance is facilitated and learning is impaired by the presence of spectators."

"We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired."

"Motivation rarely operates on a single level. There's a motivational hierarchy, with intrinsic motivation at the core - doing something just for the love of it. Once you're with others, participating in a common activity, being better than the others can motivate you. Once there's a structured competition, then winning is a reward. Trophies and titles acy as symbolic rewards, which can, in many cases, be just as powerful as any financial reward. Prizes and financial bonuses are merely the last layed."

"I have been up against tough competition all my life. I wouldn't know how to get along without it." - Walt Disney

"Not everybody gets more fit, no matter how much exercise they are forced to do."

"They actually need the stress (and the dopamine) to get up to the optimal level of mental functioning. They need stress to function best. Deadlines, competitions, high-stakes tests, et cetera."

"Worriers CAN handle stress, and even outperform the Warriors, if they train themselves to handle the specific stress of certain recurring situations. By acclimating to their stressful environment over a long period of time, they learn to perform."

"[After submerging their hand in ice-cold water.] Women took less risk after being stressed; they made decisions more slowly and earned less money for themselves. Meanwhile, for men, the stress actually improved their performance. They took more risk, and it was smart risk - the stressed men earned more money overall. They also made faster decisions."

"The primary way to teach competitiveness was to always keep score, in as many ways as possible."

"Some men, he feels, need shock to wake them up. Top male athletes are so used to competition that even being on the losing end at halftime is not shock enough."

"We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired."

"You want someone burning burning burning. If it's against your better judgement, you can't do it. You want someone who wakes up on the morning and says, 'This is a great day to run head first into a brick wall,' and they'll say it again tomorrow."

"Ambitious male state legislators will run for Congress if they have ANY chance to win. Ambitious female legislators will run for Congress if they have a good chance to win."

"Women do seem to compete less - because they only compete when they know they have a decent chance to win."

"Rather than being inspired by their high-achieving dormmate, 'Men seem to be depressed by their strongest peer.'"

"Boys don't do very well in school when confronted with higher achieving peers."

"Biologically factors that facilitated men's group membership, while women are more naturally drawn to pair-based relationships."

"While in groups, boys roughhouse and fight to be best. Girls play games that require they take turns. And as kids grow into adulthood, this pattern - where men socialize in groups, women in pairs - persists."

"Roughhousing with their young kids at least twice a week. ...This emotional groundwork helps children later in life by brave in unfamiliar situations, stand up for themselves, and learn to take risks. It gives them training time to get comfortable with the emotional intensity of competition."

"To be a tech entrepreneur, you have to burn to be the next big thing. You have to focus on the win. It takes blatant overconfidence and willful ignorance of the odds. And ignoring the odds is something fewer women tend to do."

"Millions of Italians (not in the study) have long ring fingers, and thus possibly are natural risk takers - buy they're missing all the other necessary ingredients to be entrepreneurial, from cognitive ability to creativity to competitiveness."

"Playing to Win", and 'Playing not to lose' are ubiquitous sports metaphors, thrown around to describe everything from business situations and military strategies to dating - pretty much wherever risk taking is involved."

"When someone is prevention-oriented, he adopts strategies we describe as 'Playing not to lose. When someone is gain-oriented during a competition, he is using strategies that are 'Playing to Win.'".

"How do we keep the gain-system in control?"

"When missing the kick will cause the kicker's team to lose, professional kickers succeed on those shots only 62% of the time. When making the goal will result in a win, kickers go for it - and they find the net 92% of the time."

"The difference between the two kicker scenarios is to label the first as a threat and the second as a challenge."

"In competition, the stakes are high enough that even watching opponent's make a mistake can trigger a strong change in the brain's voltage. Your brain processes the other person's mistake as if it were your own."

"The common structure of reward pay is, 'I'm going to pay you this base amount, plus a bonus of a certain amount if you get up to 95% done." But a number of experiments have shown that, for many employees, they're more productive when their reward pay is structured in the negative: "I'm going to pay you this entire bonus, but I'll deduct a certain amount if you don't get atleast 95% done."

"A prototypical role model is a rags-to-riches, hard-work-pays-off success story. But a role model can also be a cautionary tale, of a success story gone off track."

"Neuroscience has shown that in the very moment when a new idea sparks to life in the brain, the prevention system is turned off."

"Competitive fire will never ignite, or be expressed, when our orientation is just to get through the day. Competitive fire will flourish when long-term goals are high, and when it's accepted that risks and mistakes go hand-in-hand, and we are free to let ambition reign."

"Believing your luck is good WORKS, because it boosts your confidence and optimism, which, in turn, benefits performance."

"An average person on an average day, 3% of all human thoughts are devoted to contemplating these near realities and alternative scenarios. They are called counterfactuals, because they are conditional thoughts in which the opening clause premises something contrary to fact: 'If I had only done it the other way...," or "If I hadn't made that mistake...' These stray thoughts are somewhat inescapable, compulsive, and usually feel like an unproductive distraction."

"Everyone has an 'Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning (IZOF)', a level of anxiousness beneficial to his performance. But some players need more anxiety to be at their best, while others need much less. Player A might need to be at an anxiety level of 30, while Player B might need to be at 60, but player A will ALWAYS play best at around 30, and Player B will always play best if near 60."

"The problem is that what's good for our well-being is not necessarily going to be effective in a competitive context, or help you sustain the drive to achieve your goals. In the well-being realm, traits such as ambition, dominance, and perfectionism are considered psychological maladies that need to be treated."

"Students who visualize doing really well in class actually have lower final grades - even accounting for their performances on the midterm. Those who think about 'all they are going to get done this week' don't really get much done."

"Athletes who chided themselves on their mistakes, then moved on, because Olympians. Those who spend meets telling themselves they were wonderful didn't make the squad."

"The problem with all those positive images and fantasies is that you aren't as motivated to work toward your goal because you're taking success for granted. 'You can seduce yourself into thinking that you've already achieved your dream, and that can prevent you from doing what you actually need to attain it."

"Many of them play best when they are intense, moody, or irritated. I don't wake them away from what got them there in the first place."

"Of the children who had only fantasized about English fluency, their average grade was roughly a 'C'. For the group who had written about both their fantasy and the obstacles they'd face, their average grade was an 'A'. A few minutes of critical thought had resulted in an entire semester of improvement. And it wasn't as if those children were just better handling the problems they'd anticipated: they were more motivated and worked harder from the very first."

"To compete at the highest levels requires something more; it requires taking control of the body's physiology."

"The physiological effects of performance anxiety are so severe that 27% of professional musicians regularly use beta-blockers - prescription drugs that block noradrenaline and adrenaline - when they perform. Most opera principals also use these drugs."

"It's intriguing how frequently athletes report that their best performances were produced when athletes were feeling angry, vengeful, or resentful."

"Anger has been found to have benefits in purely cognitive settings as well: angry college students taking an exam did better than peers who were happy as they entered the test room."

"At the time, the hormone testosterone had a reputation for being linked to physical and behavioural aggression. Those with high baseline testosterone were more likely to get arrested, more likely to see military combat, and more likely to divorce. Testosterone, it was believed, made you into the Incredible Hulk."

"This could be one reason why positive thinking can backfire, as seen in the last chapter If you envision yourself cruising to victory, false overconfidence fails to trigger the testosterone response. If you envision a close, contested race where every bit of aretas will be needed to win, then mind will makethe event as salient, and your body will start producing the needed testosterone."

"Testosterone builds up an extra supply of the neurotransmitters that will be needed in the competition. That's the important reason to have testosterone going BEFORE a competition - it stocks up the war chest."

"Even though testosterone makes you take more risks, it doesn't cause you to take STUPID risks. The studies of chess and face surgeons - and financial traders and others as well - illustrate how testosterone helps you recognize smart risks and take them. This chemical, originally assumed to make people irrational and primitive, actually helps you be more rational."

"Testosterone doesn't respond when two friends compete, or when one team-mate beats the other in practice. When you have to go up against someone you case for, your concern for his regard defuses the testosterone response. In fact, often the opposite happens after a contest between friends - the winner's testosterone goes down."

"The more a player's testosterone rose during the game, the higher his teamwork rating. Those most highly rated as team players had testosterone boosts of almost 60% during the game. The players with low ratings - the selfish players - didn't get the testosterone boost. They didn't care what their teammates thought of them; they didn't share the ball, didn't make runs, didn't communicate."

"If you change the culture around high-testosterone competitive people, you'll change what they do to earn respect. This is true in the boardrooms of corporations, in the halls of government, in the ranks of rescue personnel, and in the platoons of soldiers."

"Japanese companies were team-based: individuals set aside their needs and agendas for the good of the company. Teams were more efficient, more driven, more innovative."

"Clarifying who is going to do what - identify distinct roles - is one of the most proven ways to increase the quality of teamwork. The egalitarian notion that team members should be equal in status and interchangeable in their roles is erroneous. Teams work best when participants know their roles, but not every role needs to be equal."

"Researchers compared the performance of U.S. negotiators with negotiators from Taiwan - a collectivist culture. U.S. negotiating teams outperformed those who negotiated alone. But in Taiwan, solo negotiators did better than those negotiating in teams. The reason being that Taiwanese were more interested in maintaining harmoney within their teams - they wouldn't risk shaming a teammate for making a mistake - than getting their team the best outcome."

"Your team is going to go a lot further if your stars push ahead, and everybody else has to work to catch up."

"This goes against 50 years of research. Most elite creative scientists are highly ambitious and highly achievement-focused, but also asocial, arrogant, and introverted. That's hardly a surprise - geeks are famous for their introversion - but has MIT hastily forgotten from whence it came?"

"Agency is the capacity to act independently, to make one's own free choices, and to make decisions quickly. Agency is the core inside self-starters, the trait that grows into personal initiative. Those low in agency don't trust themselves, and they are more reliant on other' leadership. they give up easily."

"Agency doesn't lead to creativity per se, but it builds a psychology that leads, down the road, to flexibility, adaptivity, and creative problem-solving capacity."

"There are 4 reactions to winning:
1. Joy: gleeful enthusiasm and activation;
2. Satisfaction at one's competence;
3. Denial of win: having guilt and fear over triggering other' retaliation, they feel a strong need to make the inner joy
4. Narcissistic self-enhancement: a malicious feeling of superiority over the loser"

"[and the] 4 reactions to losing:
1. Sadness and disappointment leading to a graceful acceptance of the loss without ill will or blame.
2. Denial of loss: doesn't care, tired, bored affect, emotional divestment
3. Self-devaluation: I'm no good, I'm a liability to my team, hatred of self, extreme embarrassment;
4. Aggression toward the winner: envy, anger, hatred of the winner"

I would recommend this book to those who enjoy competition, those who wish to understand their surroundings, and those who train competitors on the 'field'.

Po Bronson is a great writer, and I highly recommend this book!

[Evan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books on competition and sports that I've ever read. I mostly appreciated that it wasn't a "5 Step Plan for Winning" it was more showing research on what competitors do/don't do. I appreciate the research because athletes don't often know exactly how to express what they're doing/thinking when they're competing at a high level. That's why they call it "in the zone." Having research and specific guidelines as talking points is extremely beneficial. I think athletes can certainly benefit, parents can benefit (especially if your daughter or son is in sports), and it should be required reading even for students. Handling pressure is vital to be a functioning human.

It's especially important to know what to compete at, and when it's appropriate to compete. We've all been around the person who takes board game night way too seriously. It's not fun! Those people could benefit from reading this book. I would say: You know who you are, but the truth is they probably don't.

This book gives excellent strategies on dealing with conflict and opposition, which are crucial in today's American, hyper-competitive, comparative society.

Lastly, I really appreciated that dealing with competition well isn't a one-size fits all program. For example, a quote: "The scholars had entirely expected that having a supportive partner there would diminish the stress of giving a speech. And that did happen for the men; having their girlfriend or wife there calmed them considerably. But to the researchers’ surprise, it was the exact opposite for the women. Having their boyfriend or husband there aggravated their stress levels. It made them self-conscious, rather than comfortable. They felt more judged, not less. This finding isn’t meant as a comment on the state of marital relations. Instead, it neatly frames a conundrum: sometimes when you’re performing or competing, it really helps to have a loved one there to support you. And sometimes it doesn’t." I think if someone comes into this book needing to be told exactly what to do to fix their competitive struggles, this book won't be helpful. It's important to be creative in how this fits with you, and be self-aware with what kind of a person and competitor you are.

A couple more quotes to get you interested:

"In addition to the deliberate practice, success also depends on how well people compete. It hangs on how well they handle that psychoendocrine stress response, manage it, and even harness it."

"Ten years of practice may make you an expert. But even then, it just gets you in the door. You’ll still have to dance against other experts—most of whom have put in their ten years, too. The winner is not the person who practiced more. It’s who competes better. It’s who lives up to the moment when the band is playing, the lights are bright, and judges are watching."

It's an easy read, enjoy it. I hope it helps you become a better person.

[Yash Malviya · Rating 5 out of 5]

What comes to your mind just by reading the title - specifically, the "science of winning and losing" part? Does it simply pass binary judgement on what should be done to win? Glorify the victors of highly competitive area perhaps? No. In fact, it acknowledges (ofc not fully) the diverse characteristics of people. This makes the book more of a - pick whichever theory you wish to test or whichever suits you best.

Various psychology experiments about competitions are presented. No single control group is classified as incapable of winning, theories support what can work for each are written. Fairly objective in terms of content apart from glorifying competitions for the most part, but what else do you expect in a book like this? Even still this is discussed in the book - bringing up the arguments from both sides. Overall focus on - how competitions can be a way of improving ourselves.

Psychology experiments are presented on the following topics, the reasoning is done for some using physiology and neuroscience -
1. How competitions are a part of daily life? But you can still choose which ones do you want to be a part of.
2. Burn out among competitors.
3. Anxiety in competitions, emphasis on repeated exposure.
4. Interaction of collaboration and competitiveness.
5. Gender differences. Types of groups dynamics and team hierarchies. Role of parents, siblings and peers.
6. Why we justify fairness in competitions.
7. Loss prevention vs. Gain oriented. Risk calculations and how it may not be as logical as we think it is?

Some other interesting connections the author makes -
1. Could art and creativity have attached competitive elements? Talks about how historically renowned artists tried to outdo all previous works.
2. How Democracy and Olympics are based on the same principles of fairness. How can the ugly side of desire to outdo each would be prevented?
These were discussed more so from a philosophical standpoint.

As you can see I insisted on the fairly unbiased nature of this book, but my very opinion could be biased because I perceived a few topics similarly. Still, this book has guided me to re-interpret some high anxiety incidents from my life in a new light.

A full 5 stars. Trust me have a read, it won't be a waste. If you do let me know your thoughts.

[Nex Juice · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book talks about the nature of competition.

They talk about three different kinds of people - those who benefit from competition (performance improves), those who suffer from competition (performance worsens), and those whose performance is not affected by the presence of a competitor. It's important to understand which of the 3 you are, so you can best position yourself for maximum success. If you're the type of person who does worse when competing, you can be empowered by this knowledge! Make modifications in your life to remove the idea of competition to maximize your results. If you're one who benefits from competition, you can establish friendly (or not) competitions with friends, colleagues, etc to maximize YOUR results. If you're unaffected, then that's hugely empowering, as you can market yourself as being versatile and consistent.

They spent some time talking about the general differences between the way men and women handle competition. Women are generally less likely to enter into competitions than men, they seem to be more risk averse. Women also seem to have a more logical understanding and internalization of the odds of winning any particular competition. They are much less likely to enter when the odds are against them, whereas men more often seem to assume they'll be a winner regardless of how small the odds are. They also found that women's performance seems to be negatively impacted by socializing with the competition beforehand. It's as if they have a more difficult time competing against someone they like or feel connected to in some way - in a way that does not seem to impact their male counterparts.

They also found that the level of testosterone produced in a male before a competition had a very strong correlation with who the winners would be. This is one proposed explanation for the "underdog effect" - when someone wins a competition against all odds. They found that the more seriously someone is taking the competition and how hard they'll have to work, they release testosterone. Those who expect to win do not experience the same pressures, and they can be overly "lax."

They point out the difference in mindset between a focus on winning and a focus on not losing - which are you focusing on?

Check out my book review on Youtube! https://youtu.be/fZKJHm8gUiU

[Bernard Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Few would argue that circumstances, conditions, and emotions in sport affect the probability of winning or losing in competition. This is why - apart from sheer ability - home advantage matters, familiarity and routine matters, and confidence matters. Psychology in short matters.

But what is the science behind this?

Written in a non technical Malcolm Gladwell way, Bronson and Merryman - both journalists - offer plausible explanations from circumstantial evidence in sport psychology. Some conclusions:

1. Competition is key to continuous improvement. This is obvious to many, but there is a school of thought that says pressure reduces performance levels and creativity. This is untrue on both counts.

2. Competing within your ability band is key to improvement. If the ability bands are too far apart, the brain refuses to compete. That is why pairing top and poor athletes together is not a good strategy for improving either.

3. Hormones (testosterone, cortisol, oxytocin) go some way to explain performance. The problem is that the effect on some is different from others, suggesting that causal factors in performance are not unidimensional.

4. Star athletes, in particular, require special attention if they are to perform at their peak. Expectations are different, and standing out generally is a lonely venture. This also explains why athletes generally perform better when they are in a team vs. solo environment.

Acceptance of the benefits of sports psychology is still not universal. I have heard coaches tell me that they do not need psychologists in their setup as they "know" how to get peak performances from their wards and do not need a psychologist to "confuse" their athletes or players. They want total control. Such an attitude is limiting. The psychologist should be seen as part of the coaching setup, just like the goalkeeping coach is not an outsider. At the elite end, every little bit of advantage, especially what goes on in the mind, counts.

It's worth reading even for non-sport managers.

[Alejandro Sanoja · Rating 4 out of 5]

For many years, the majority of my life revolved around winning. The only purpose of doing anything was to win.

If we played Age of Empires I had to figure out the best possible strategy and beat my friends. If we played Monopoly with friends and family I had to come up with the best negotiation strategy to succeed. If we were debating about the best NBA teams or players, I always had a lot of data and facts to back up my claims and wouldn't rest until everyone else agreed with me.

For a while, this strategy helped but at some point it became I waste of energy and I decided to tone down that competitiveness. After reading this book, I have no doubt that I have to bring that mindset back, but with a better purpose.

This book will help you understand competition and how to make the most out of your competitive drive. Also, for those who don't like competition at all, here you will find the tools to understand the reason behind that and how to overcome these if you decide so.

The insights in this book are backed by research as well as great stories.

Some of my highlights:

"To be successful you have to be able to perform when it counts."

"The one who does whatever it takes is the one who wins."

"As a player, she never sacrificed winning in order to be liked."

"Gain-orientation pushes you to take risks to get something you don't already have. Prevention-orientation pushes you to avoid danger."

[Наталія Толмачова · Rating 5 out of 5]

Свого часу для мене ця книжка була пізнавальною. Дещо з того, що я записала і запам'ятала:

1. Про вроджені реакції на стрес. Типова реакція на стрес закладена генетично, а особиста ефективність залежить не стільки від компетентності і досвіду роботи, скільки від стресостійкості (вміння працювати в умовах тиску). Мозок одних людей краще працює без стресу, а іншим стрес необхідний для ефективної роботи. Навчання (досвід) допомагає краще давати собі раду зі стресовими ситуаціями, можна навіть сказати, що тренування почасти "б'є" вроджені реакції.

2. Про гормони. Тестостерон не робить людину більш агресивною, а просто дає енергію. Кортизол не викликає стрес, а захищає організм від стресу і допомагає адаптуватися в нових умовах. Окситоцин змушує не стільки довіряти своїм, скільки остерігатися чужих.

3. Про вищу конкуренцію у меншій групі. Дослідження показують, що якщо в класі мало учнів, то між ними більша конкуренція, тому ефективність навчання вища. Тобто справа не в тому, що вчителі більше уваги приділяють кожній дитині, а в тому, що діти більше конкурують між собою.

Мабуть, вже є книжки з новішими, уточненими дослідженнями, але ця книжка також вартує прочитання.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a little bit of an odd book. My first thought was "Is this really a book that anyone asked for?" Is there really not enough emphasis on competition and winning in American society?

What's interesting is that while I was reading this book I was simultaneously reading Po Bronson's earlier book "What should I do with my life?" and the contrast between that much more profound and searching book and this much more utilitarian book was so jarring I found myself wondering how they could have been written by the same guy.

Still, despite that, it does make an interesting point:

-Science is increasingly showing that the people who regularly perform well in competition have a release of specific hormones that allow them to regulate their stress. People whose bodies don't do this usually don't do very well in competition or under stress.

So if you don't like competition, don't just give up, but think about whether there are other ways you can achieve the stress reduction.

At least, that's what I took from it.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Better subtitled "PART of The Science of Winning and Losing."

I'm keeping it and will be referring to it. I didn't think it painted a complete picture nor is it very motivating in making one want to do more winning and less losing.

It's not a Richard Marcinko or Larry Winget kind of get off your butt, and here's your plan by the way kind of book. I'd like to hear less about estrogen peaks and more about the people who find that doing it first and letting the feelings follow is the way to win.

The stress is definitely on the science part of the winning and losing. In spite of how well quoted and researched this book is, the reader must remember the environment. Science today is dripping with so much political correctness and university agenda-mongering that it's hard to trust. Winning, on the other hand, is about people like Sheryl Sandberg and Ray Rice, who have never given a tenth of a damn about the ratios of their finger lengths nor strategic negotiating preference viewed through regulatory roles.

[Shannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unless the author has additional knowledge, he often seems to confuse correlation and causation when making inferences based on the studies. It gets a bit frustrating.

Also, he gets confusing at times. For example, he says that women who run for office as equally likely than men to get elected, so there is no gender bias. But then he says that only women who KNOW they are qualified will run where men at any level of competency will run. Well... doesn't this mean that more competent women are getting elected as equally as a less competent men? This still sounds like a gender bias exists; women should be getting elected as often as their equally qualified male counterparts.

However, many of the topics were novel and fascinating and worth the read.

[Uģis Balmaks · Rating 2 out of 5]

Heavy on mediocre stories, light on actionable takeaways.

Halfway through the book, the distinctions authors used (male/ female, younger sibling/older sibling) were not helpful. I’m already a younger brother and there’s nothing I can do about that. So learning how older sisters are different from me doesn’t do much.

Similarly I will continue seeing the individuals on my team as individuals with their own unique set of motivations. That is much more helpful than the broad distinctions the authors used.

Also, the stories authors told often felt like unnecessary fluff (eg there were no meaningful takeaways drawn from the boys camp experiment story but they still told it in great detail.)

50% in I ditched the book.

[Burt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Goodwill near my home had a cheap copy of Top Dog. I love pop psychology books (provided they are based on scholarly research), so I thought that I’d give this one a try.

I’m glad that I did. Bronson taught me all sorts of things about how our minds work in competitive situations. He caused me to think of many things that I’d never considered.

The book trailed off a bit @ the end. Bronson gets a bit TOO deep in the scholarly studies and trying to explain what they mean. When the people disappear from the book and the narrative focuses too much on academic articles, Top Dog loses momentum.

But I recommend Top Dog with few reservations. I’m going to keep my copy and I’ve already made plans to reread it.

[Henrik Haapala · Rating 5 out of 5]

• Aretas (Greek): “excellence”- honing the mind and body through competition, sports provess, endurance, self-control, cunning and diplomacy.
• “Aretas meant that competing had shaped you into a better person: competition challenged you to become the best you could be.” p.14
• The key word here is challenge. Challenge yourself to the limit of your ability and you will grow stronger and wiser.
• Competition head to head improves performance
• Competition increases creative motivation (for many)
• What counts is your psychological environment when it comes to stress and optimum performance
• IZOF: individual zone of optimal functioning
• Near miss bias increases risk taking
• Misunderstood hormones: testosterone and oxytocin
• Testosterone = motivation
• Length of ring finger relative to index finger predictive of success in some fields (underlying process is the amount of testosterone exposed to as a fetus)
• “As strange as it may sound, the ratio of index to ring finger has been shown to correlate with traits such as spatial ability, risk taking, and assertiveness. It explains why some people focus on what they’ll win, while others are so sensitive to the odds. Research has also connected finger ratio to success in competitive sports such as soccer and skiing. Rustichini’s own work has connected it to real-life success, such as the profitability of high-frequency financial traders.” p.124
• Some play to win - some play not to lose. Different strategies.
• Elite competition in schools can be good for women but not for men.
• Warriors vs worriers
• “Some scholars have suggested that we are all Warriors or Worriers. Those with fast-acting dopamine clearers are the Warriors, ready for threatening environments where maximum performance is required despite threat or pain. Those with slow-acting dopamine clearers are the Worriers, capable of more complex planning and thinking ahead about likelihood’s and consequences. Both Warriors and Worriers were necessary for human tribes to survive.” p.70
• Warriors recover fast from PTSD, Worriers are more sensitive to PTSD and have a more difficult time to recover.
• “Warrior” gene and “Worrier” gene
• Testosterone increased math-ability test by 9%.
• In shogi, Japanese chess, those with higher testosterone where playing more cognitively as opposed to emotionally.
• Testosterone predictive of success in chess tournament.
• Finite vs infinite games
• Negative thinking vs positive thinking
• Downside of positive thinking: “you can seduce yourself into thinking that you’ve already achieved your dream, and that can prevent you from doing what you actually need to attain it.”
• Counterfactuals: those who employ additive counterfactuals perform better over time!
• This means there is a place for negative thinking in finding better strategies for the next round and not relaxing too much.
• “By thinking through different versions of ‘if only this had happened instead’, you can avoid some of the blind spots due to overconfidence. You can predict problems that may arise, and then rerun the scenarios in your head until you’ve figured out a solution.” p.164
• Additive counter factual: What we might have done but it didn’t occur in reality.
• Incidentally women have much less overconfidence bias: they are better at investing money and predict stock market (remember though that you can’t predict the stock market).
• Women have more realistic view of ability and tend to look way more at the odds: “on this large group with a big prize I have a low probability to win, so I won’t play the game”
• Most men however will play the game and especially when it’s a winner takes it all scenario.
• Summary: we need to compete to achieve aretas and become the best versions of ourselves. This is clearest in sports where there are definite rules that limit the game. Also life can be viewed as an infinite game that you need good strategies for. Therefore, think hard and harness the stress you are under - it might make you better. Also think on the negative side; not all things are great - many things need improving. This is the way to excellence; sculpting a better sculpture - like Michelangelo vs Leonardo da Vinci or Bach vs Mozart. Harness the competition, tough it out; challenge yourself.

Best quotes:

“There’s no clear evidence that reassuring yourself you’re great! promotes better outcomes during competition. A number of studies have found that more negative self-talk is associated with more successful performance. Athletes who chided themselves on their mistakes, then moved on, became Olympians. Those who spent meets telling themselves they were wonderful didn’t make the squad.” 162

“The problem with all those positive images and fantasies is that you aren’t as motivated to work toward your goal because you’re taking success for granted. You can seduce yourself into thinking that you’ve already achieved your dream, and that can prevent you from doing what you actually need to attain it, explained Oettingen.” 163

Lesson: Instead, expect setbacks and they will not be as tough to overcome. Expect bad times and hurdles and prepare for them.

“Testosterone is motivation”

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, if he wins, knows the thrills of high achievement, and, if he fails, at least fails daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.”

/Theodore Roosevelt