Pages

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Winning

Who cares about winning? Why do we care? Do we care?

A few months ago, Matt put up a thought-provoking post about Questioning Ends. Admittedly, I was very turned off by the post and some of the comments that were left on it, and it's worth taking the time to read both the post and the comments to understand the points in full. In short, however, Matt was questioning a friend's drive to "win" races (based on a quote the friend posted), and asked "Why is winning important?"

What upset me at the time was that the question, and later the answers some gave, completely misunderstood the friend's own answer, which explained the quote ("You just have to keep believing that one day you will win.") by saying "The quote really means to get to the heart of not doubting it when it seems a dream is impossible."

Earlier tonight I was having a conversation with my friend Howie, with whom I own Cleveland Browns' season tickets. He was noting that following sports in general is an exercise in stupidity from a payoff standpoint: You follow a team for a lifetime and if you're lucky, they win a few championships? I commented that our friend Jay had made an interesting point when the Cavs were knocked out of the playoffs, suggesting that focusing on the enjoyment of watching Lebron James instead of whether they win would be more worthwhile. Howie replied that while that's a cute and clever thought, when it comes down to it it is completely unsatisfying. He - and most any fan - would rather trade Lebron James away if it meant watching a championship team. The value in watching a sports game is increased by whatever it is they are playing for. The reason people are less interested in exhibition games is because they have no inherent value - though it may be the same players, the game is not the same. While it can still have some entertainment value, it comes nowhere near a regular season game, let alone a championship.

As I agreed with him, I couldn't help but think back to Matt's post. What is it about exhibition games that make them so much less valuable? It's the same game, with the same rules. They play predominantly the same way. The answer is obvious: It's less valuable because nobody really cares who wins at any point in the game. And yet, even when a team loses a championship game, their disappointment often does not come close to what one might expect as compared to how much emphasis they place on winning. Why is that? Why is winning so integral to the game all the way through, but losing far less important at the end?

I think the answer is clearer when we look at the rarer losing team who is absolutely devestated at the end - sitting on their bench, that crushed look on their faces as their chance at victory has been snatched away. Their devastation most often comes from a failure of some sort - expectations unachieved, squandered opportunities, and a disappointment at having failed where they were supposed to have succeeded. Ultimately, that sadness comes from having not been their best when it truly mattered. Lebron James says he found it difficult to congratulate the Orlando Magic after they knocked the Cavs out because as a competitor it did not make sense to him to do so; the Cavs, after all, had been the favorites to win. The same Lebron James had no such difficulty congratulating the San Antonio Spurs after being swept in four games by them two years earlier, because those Cavs were not expected to even make it that far.

The significance of victory is much deeper (or simpler) than merely winning. I commented on Matt's post at the time:
The purpose of winning within just itself, of course, is to win. But the reason we encourage people to strive to win is because the drive used in attempting to win brings out the best in that person while they strive for that victory. [...]

Winning in and of itself is important for a brief moment. Like any success, after the achievement is reached it is only useful in measuring how far you've come and how that can be utilized to be successful in the future. Winning as a *concept* is important in that by striving to "be the best", people are forced to BE their best.
Professional teams often play exhibition games against college or semi-pro clubs. The pro team gains nothing if they win the game - there is little pride earned in winning a game one is supposed to win. If the college team wins, however, even if the pro team was playing its bench much of the game, the college team will take intense pride in their accomplishment.

Ultimately, striving to "win" - much like any goal - is what brings out the best in people. Without that mindset, there is simply almost no way a person or team will put forward their best efforts and utilize their greatest skills. People typically don't play basketball - or even Boggle - without keeping score, because it would be boring and the people wouldn't be trying nearly as hard; but should they keep score, even the 'loser' is satisfied at the end if they feel it was a "good game" where they put in a solid effort.

The reason winning brings such elation is that it is a measurement of having succeeded in one's quest. That feeling also quickly dissipates to an extent as the person then tries to consider ways in which they can be even better, or more consistent - can they do it again?

Near the end of the comment thread, Matt adjusted his question to agree with this point, but question why bringing out the best in many areas of life was worthwhile.
"I agree that encouraging people to win can help them to bring out the best in themselves. But the question is: best in what?"
I felt that the answer to this was important as well:
Best in whatever it is that best utilizes their skills and drive, typically, though it could be something which best lets them overcome a weakness, something which best helps them develop a mindset for life, etc. Certainly the idea alone of "I can accomplish anything I put my mind to to a degree far exceeding what I could currently" would be an improvement to near any human being.

Winning, or the drive toward it, is actually quite similar in the end to self-reflection and introspection. Both are not ends in and of themselves, but means to ends. I think often people forget this, and take pride in their self-reflective, introspective, or even intellectual natures or actions (rightfully, I might add) but forget that all of those are but tools to becoming a better person - not just in thought, but in action. We forget that the theoretical is there for its practical intent, not just for its own self-purpose.

Whatever one may think of winning a medal's value, the lesson we learn from one who pursues it is quite impressive if we choose to do so.
In the end, nearly everything in life comes back to how it helps us live that life. Mussar can be taken from anywhere and applied to anything. The drive to win happens to be an easier lesson which resonates well with nearly everyone, and what comes out of that drive is unmatched from nearly any other method: Introspection, intellectualism, self-reflection - those often pale in comparison to winning when it comes to motivating people. Without motivation, success in any area of life is difficult to achieve.

7 comments:

  1. That's why capitalism and competition is good.

    On the flip side, there's also a danger of a person winning and saying, "Okay, I've won. I'm the champion. Time to move on to something else" or "I've won. no one can beat me. No point in playing anymore." And sometimes people will only play things if they KNOW they will win. Otherwise, they don't want to play for fear of losing.

    I think it's easy for people to focus so much on winning that they forget it's not really about if they win, it's about if they play well - if they challenge themselves and meet that challenge, or even beat that challenge. Like you said, someone can lose and still feel good because he/she played a really good game anyway. Games aren't fun if people will only play if they know they'll win.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's why capitalism and competition is good.

    Among other reasons.

    On the flip side, there's also a danger of a person winning and saying, "Okay, I've won. I'm the champion. Time to move on to something else" or "I've won. no one can beat me. No point in playing anymore."

    Time to move on to something else is not a bad thing; it is good to come up with ways to constantly better one's self in many areas of life.

    As for "nobody can beat me" - until someone wins without fail consistently this simply is not true. People will always come up with new tactics specifically designed to defeat a person's method. There is no true competitive sport where a person or team has dominated to the point of hopelessness on the part of everyone else, for example. One of the great things about capitalism, freedom, etc. is that people are encouraged to come up with ways to do even better, no matter how dominating any one force/company/team is. One of the few things that conservatives and liberals all agree on is anti-trust law, because a monopolizing force destroys competition, innovation, etc.

    And sometimes people will only play things if they KNOW they will win. Otherwise, they don't want to play for fear of losing.

    That's not winning. That's just sad.

    I think it's easy for people to focus so much on winning that they forget it's not really about if they win, it's about if they play well - if they challenge themselves and meet that challenge, or even beat that challenge.

    Ultimately this is unsatisfying. It's like the example of a pro team beating a college team - they don't feel particularly accomplished. It's why the best always seek out competitors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Time to move on to something else is not a bad thing; it is good to come up with ways to constantly better one's self in many areas of life.

    Agreed. I guess I just wasn't clear in what I meant. I think people have this idea that once they win, they're the best. Just because you won in something doesn't mean you've reached your potential in that thing. You can always get better. It's not about if you can win a game. It's about if you can continue to excel.

    Ultimately this is unsatisfying. It's like the example of a pro team beating a college team - they don't feel particularly accomplished. It's why the best always seek out competitors.

    Of course. That's not what I meant. I meant people who don't like to play things because they know they're going to lose - like if they're playing against someone who is better than them at that thing, or if they feel they don't dominate in that area. A college team would still enjoy playing against a pro-team and would still feel a sense of accomplishment if they don't get creamed but just lose respectfully. What I mean is, it's okay to play a game even if you don't dominate in it. It can still be fun.

    I used to play SET against one of my best friends who was AMAZING. I never beat her (well, maybe once), but I still always wanted to play with her. Why? Because it was fun. Because every time I played, I got better and better. Because it was a real challenge. Because if I came close to matching her score, I'd feel good.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The competitive drive was given for the sake of spiritual growth - קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה. But when besting the other becomes the end rather than the means, well... that ties in to my G-d hater essay.

    When it is misutilized for mundane achievements with no l'shem Shamayim, or chanelled vicarously, toward favorite sports teams or competitions, it's a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  5. R' Beckerman - But when besting the other becomes the end rather than the means, well...

    ...then the person has missed the point.

    When it is misutilized for mundane achievements with no l'shem Shamayim, or chanelled vicarously, toward favorite sports teams or competitions, it's a waste.

    Not always. The lessons we learn and skills we build from mundane activities, and sometimes simply from observing others, can help us greatly in other aspects of life.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The lessons we learn and skills we build from mundane activities, and sometimes simply from observing others, can help us greatly in other aspects of life.

    When done with that in mind - that's l'shem shamayim as well.

    ReplyDelete