I haven’t seen this idea anywhere else, possibly because the demographics which think about such things are natural hardos, but actually there is a game-theoretic reason behind these attitudes, which typically start to manifest in school classrooms. When you are competing internally rather than globally, within a small environment such that your attitudes can affect the entire group, conspicuous non-effort is both an attempt to form a collective agreement to reduce the level of competition, and a type of stotting if you can perform well despite “not trying”. Another way that the formal education system maladapts you for real life.
Conspicuous non-effort as a status signal of one's own competence was common in my experience throughout high-competition high school and college contexts. I hadn't ever thought of it as a strategy to attempt to collectively *reduce* competition, though. This point resonates.
I'd be interested to hear what you mean about this strategy being maladaptive for "real life." It seems that signaling your competence through conspicuous non-effort ("I'm so smart that I don't have to try hard to do well") would continue to work outside of the school context.
So the scenario when this strategy works is when you are competing internally rather than globally, within a small environment such that your attitudes can affect the entire group. In the "real world", there are cases where this is true, like in local clubs or noncompetitive jobs. But more often, you are competing globally, against people who are both talented and hardworking. Or you are not competing against people but rather fighting the world itself in trying to discover or create something.
Knowing what I know now, if I were given the choice at birth between getting talent or determination, I’d choose determination every time.
I am such a try-hard. It’s the only thing that ever worked for me. You might like Murakami’s What I Talk About When I Talk About Running. He says he’d never have become a great novelist if running had’t taught him that he can accomplish great goals in life with mediocre talent.
I'll check that out from the library. I've read "Kafka on the Shore" and it was frankly a bit too avant-garde for me, but even that book made it clear he's an incredible writer. Perhaps something more grounded in reality will be a better read for me.
I’ve had this thought before too and generally agree. Even if I don’t put exceptional effort in every one of my pursuits, I “sit in the front row of the class and ask questions during the lecture”, figuratively and literally.
Related idea: sometimes people glamorize unhealthy habits, like not getting enough sleep, maybe because of a similar cognitive dissonance? But getting enough sleep, eating salads, and going to the gym is Good, Actually.
That being said, there are many zero-sum games in life, and I think the social pressure to not try so hard at these competitions is a good coordination mechanism to prevent ourselves from giving up too much for them.
I haven’t seen this idea anywhere else, possibly because the demographics which think about such things are natural hardos, but actually there is a game-theoretic reason behind these attitudes, which typically start to manifest in school classrooms. When you are competing internally rather than globally, within a small environment such that your attitudes can affect the entire group, conspicuous non-effort is both an attempt to form a collective agreement to reduce the level of competition, and a type of stotting if you can perform well despite “not trying”. Another way that the formal education system maladapts you for real life.
Conspicuous non-effort as a status signal of one's own competence was common in my experience throughout high-competition high school and college contexts. I hadn't ever thought of it as a strategy to attempt to collectively *reduce* competition, though. This point resonates.
I'd be interested to hear what you mean about this strategy being maladaptive for "real life." It seems that signaling your competence through conspicuous non-effort ("I'm so smart that I don't have to try hard to do well") would continue to work outside of the school context.
So the scenario when this strategy works is when you are competing internally rather than globally, within a small environment such that your attitudes can affect the entire group. In the "real world", there are cases where this is true, like in local clubs or noncompetitive jobs. But more often, you are competing globally, against people who are both talented and hardworking. Or you are not competing against people but rather fighting the world itself in trying to discover or create something.
Knowing what I know now, if I were given the choice at birth between getting talent or determination, I’d choose determination every time.
I am such a try-hard. It’s the only thing that ever worked for me. You might like Murakami’s What I Talk About When I Talk About Running. He says he’d never have become a great novelist if running had’t taught him that he can accomplish great goals in life with mediocre talent.
I'll check that out from the library. I've read "Kafka on the Shore" and it was frankly a bit too avant-garde for me, but even that book made it clear he's an incredible writer. Perhaps something more grounded in reality will be a better read for me.
I’ve had this thought before too and generally agree. Even if I don’t put exceptional effort in every one of my pursuits, I “sit in the front row of the class and ask questions during the lecture”, figuratively and literally.
Related idea: sometimes people glamorize unhealthy habits, like not getting enough sleep, maybe because of a similar cognitive dissonance? But getting enough sleep, eating salads, and going to the gym is Good, Actually.
That being said, there are many zero-sum games in life, and I think the social pressure to not try so hard at these competitions is a good coordination mechanism to prevent ourselves from giving up too much for them.