The psychologist Professor Ian Robertson has recently published a book called The Winner Effect. Professor Robertson also blogs on this and other topics here. For those who have not come across this term here’s an explanation from the dust jacket of the book.
“‘The winner effect’ is a term used in biology to describe how an animal that has won a few fights against weak opponents is much more likely to win later bouts against stronger contenders. As Ian Robertson reveals, it applies to humans, too: achievement changes the chemistry of the brain making people more focused, smarter, more confident and more aggressive. The effect is as strong as a drug, and the more an individual wins, the more they will go on to win. In fact, winning can become physically addictive.”
The book is fairly topical and suggests the Winner Effect may have been at play in some of the high profile financial institution crashes we have seen during the last few years including the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and JP Morgan Chase as well as Enron. The reason for the effect is that elevated testosterone levels in the bloodstream of the winner, which can last for months, help him (and it usually is a ‘him’) in his next bout. The increased testosterone raises the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and with each bout the process repeats itself. This results in a positive feedback loop where the winner’s testosterone keeps rising making him more confident, and raising his odds of winning, in his next round.
The ‘challenge’ of the Winner Effect is to not let this feedback loop get out of control and drive the person experiencing it to ever greater levels of risk and to him ultimately crashing and burning as he inevitably and eventually will. In the case of Fred Goodwin of RBS it was not just he that crashed but an entire corporation and pretty much an entire economy! So can the Winner Effect be harnessed, a bit like nuclear fission reaction for good (a nuclear reactor) rather than bad (an atomic bomb)?
The clue to this seems to lie in setting yourself realistic goals which, when achieved, give you enough of a testosterone kick to spur you on to achieving the next goal without experiencing an overdose, such as might be achieved by setting and achieving a much bigger goal but which you are far more likely not to achieve in the first place.
There is a good deal of evidence that suggests setting unrealistic goals or having role models that are hard if not impossible to emulate lead to a fatalistic outlook which means you not only won’t achieve those goals but will end up not even trying because you believe you don’t have the ability, intelligence or self-control to achieve. Children of highly successful parents can often be like this. Professor Roberston cites the example of Picasso’s son who lived forever in the artistic geniuses shadow of his father and died a heavy drinker at the age of 54. What people often do not realise about Picasso was that he actually spent most of his early years doing little else but draw and paint, encouraged no doubt by his father who was an art teacher and professor at the School of Fine Arts in Corunna. It is likely therefore that Picasso’s fame and success was more a result of hard work and practice and an example of the 10,000 hour rule rather than an innate genius.
As we have pointed out before if there is a common path to mastery (of anything) it is that you are prepared to set challenging, but achievable goals, and practice, practice, practice on the way. Harnessing the Winner Effect and maintaining just the right levels of testosterone to help drive you forward may also help.
There is a question often asked about photographers which is why do they spend so much time looking at, comparing and then buying the latest camera or lens when virtually no other artist indulges in such pursuits but instead focuses on the art itself. After all, painters do not spend hours scouring brochures looking at the latest paintbrush or easel? They might regularly buy new brushes but they are a mere tool, to be discarded once the artwork is created and the brush is worn out. Don McCullin, the social documentary and war photographer, famously said in his book The Destruction Business:
“I only use a camera like I use a toothbrush. It does the job.”
which nicely places the camera where it should be, as a tool to get the job done. The sad fact is, if you like buying shiny new gadgets that is, whether they be cameras, laptops or even the latest silver Mont Blanc pen (or “writing instrument” as they prefer it to be known), there is no correlation between creativity and equipment cost or quantity. As Hugh MacLeod says in his book Ignore Everybody,
“A fancy tool just gives the second-rater one more pillar to hide behind.”
Henri Cartier-Bresson used a battered old Leica (see right) to create most of his iconic images whilst Ernest Hemingway used an old Corona No. 3 portable typewriter to write his novels.
As we say in our Versatilist Manifesto, versatilists “deliver”. They do this using tools but are not slaves to them. Success as a versatilist means recognising the pillars that Hugh MacLeod mentions and getting rid of them in favour of delivering what they need to. To quote MacLeod again:
“Good pillar management is one of the most valuable talents you have on the planet. All we can do is keep asking the question, “Is this a pillar?” about every aspect of our business, our craft our reason for being alive, and go on from there.”
If we were too extend our manifesto in any way it would be by saying that a versatilist delivers using tools but is not in beholden or in awe to them.