I realized today I enjoy competing mentally against others. The statement seems silly. Many people enjoy competing against others in various ways. For my part, being unwilling / unable to compete in many phsyical events (I'm happy to race you in cycling or sailing), I've found mental competitions more suiting. It would seem logical then to assume I am "smart". I can assure you, I am not ;-) I have a terrible memory, ontop of a split brain which excels neither at the creative and abstract nor the logical.
This desire however does explain my attraction towards trading. It's a player versus player game with real life stakes and consequences. In addition, some of the brightest minds in the world have been tasked with outplaying each other; but the playerbase itself and potential payoff is huge. Perfect for the obsessive, the game doesn't end until you quit or lose1.
Now, I like to think of myself as a capable learner. Given enough time, I should be able to achieve success and become competitive in whatever area I apply myself to. However, the real world is a harsh reality for such a fragile mind as myself :-) Experience has shown I am unable to do well in things that are player versus player, such as PC or board gaming. Sure, I may find some limited success in a small audience, but normally I find myself outplayed and not quick to pick up the tricks to winning.
Let's consider an example. Consider a chessmaster. I understand the basic rules of chess enough to be able to move all of the pieces properly, as well as pursue the objective of taking the opposing king to win. However, the chessmaster will continually beat me at games. We play several times daily for months, and yet I find myself unable to beat him. This brings us to an interesting question. At some point, will I be able to compete against the master? Eventually thru the games I play, our knowledge should equalize -- or can I never catch up to his level of knowledge? By definition he is my teacher, and has a headstart on his knowledgebase, all the while expanding it with every game he plays. Assuming the master never allows his human error to make a wrong move, it would seem impossible for me to ever beat him, save for him making a mistake.
To fully understand the problem, we must look at how someone can become skilled at something like chess. In my example, I am assuming my skill comes from me emulating the chessmaster and learning his moves. If I am capable only of emulation of skill, aside from human error I should not ever beat him. I may indeed find success against other players, assuming my mentor was more skilled than those I play against, I by extension will also find success. However, there is another way. I could apply new thought and originality to the problem. In theory, I could best the chessmaster in my first game with him.
It is this second method of successfully competing against others that the thinker is driven to. It would seem for most who wish to do well, simply emulate someone who has had success. For the thinker, your task is so much greater. You are compelled to see beyond the skill of your opponent; to understand them, and then compete above and beyond them. For the thinker, there can be no other path. Suffice to say I'm a thinker (or someone hopelessly wishing himself to be one).
1. Humorously, you can't really "win". You can only stop playing. Any definition of winning or losing when you stop is up to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment