When you're the best (A lane) it's easy to be magnanimous or nice. Your reward was the win and that gives you all the peace of mind needed for this.<p>When you're the average or below average (C or D lanes) it's just as easy to be nice. Being far from the top means the competitive pressure is not as taxing and maybe even the effort is lower. In those lanes if you feel the pressure to be the best you can either become the best (winning is the reward), or learn to deal with it and "take it easy" (playing the game is the reward), or since you're pretty far from the top you can give up to relieve the pressure (not feeling the pressure is the reward).<p>But the B lane can be a bit of hell. You are competitive, you are so close to the top, and yet so far. Becoming the best is hard, giving up is just as hard, and learning to live with this "close but no cigar" situation is hard. Second best is the worst place to be. Almost all of the effort and qualifications, sometimes even more, none of the laurels. The most frustrating position. Nobody remembers the second best. All that might build up to a less than pleasant attitude.<p>Once you see it you recognize it all over the place. The player from the winning team offers to help his opponent up but never the other way around. The second best student is always far less happy than the one who just passed by the skin of their teeth. The candidate who won an election shakes his opponent's hand while the opponent is broken.
Nah. As a nice B laner over my career I've seen plenty of A lane jerks. Oftentimes the people in the A lane are driven by... something that forever goes unfulfilled. I've seen a few engineering departments that are built around these types. Unhappy, but intensely dedicated to the technical details of the job and they become a keystone of the team, doing some of the most difficult architectural work because they're the only ones who dedicate the mental space to know it all. I'd say one of my strong points is being someone who can interface with these A lane types without taking it too personally. That's not to say only jerks become A lane people, just that the jerks are definitely not mostly in the B lane in my 26 years of experience.
I think this is tied to the 90% effort model (which I thought was attributed to Carl Lewis, but I can't find a source).<p>The A group are pushing themselves, but they have a confidence of being at the top of the pack, and that slight bit of relaxation that lets their body flow freely through the water.<p>The B group are striving and pushing and tense, putting 100% effort in all the time to try to get to the A group. This extra tension in their body is actually slowing them down. But from a mental state, it is also putting them in a position of excessive competitiveness. They are more focused on beating the other swimmers to get into the A group.<p>The A group aren't trying to beat the other swimmers in the A group. They are trying to beat themselves. They want the other swimmers to be better, in order to push themselves to be better.<p>The C group know they are in the bottom half, and have very little to gain from hyper-competitiveness. Might as well get along with everyone.<p>The D group are just happy to be there.
I don't know if Office Space is the cultural touchstone it was 20 years ago, but I think this can be neatly summarized by the observation that: "But real gangsta-ass [gangstas][0] don't flex nuts
'Cause real gangsta-ass [gangstas] know they got 'em"<p>[0] A shockingly large amount of the dialogue in the movie has to be censored for broadcast television, including this song.
This is a well documented phenomenon in mammalian social systems.<p>Second from the top in the hierarchy is the most stressful (as measured in cortisol). It's 99% of the stress of the top with none of the benefit.
A friend tells me that performance enhancing drug use is pretty common on the high amateur, almost pro level of bicycling. These are folks who are very good and obsessed with the sport, but not at the pro level. But there's also no testing at many of their races so they can get away with the PED use.<p>No one is really sure what to do because these dedicated semi-pros pay lots of fees to support the races. If they're a bit strict on PED use, the registrations could really drop off. But on the flip side, the PED use drives away others who are competing fairly but just not ready to submit their body to all of those extra chemicals.
similar to <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/why-bronze-medalists-are-happier-than-silver-winners/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/why-b...</a><p>"Why Bronze Medalists Are Happier Than Silver Winners"
It's because everyone knows the A's are A's, so they don't have any problem being nice, sharing tips, helping others along.<p>The B's are trying to become A's. Maybe they even think they're <i>better</i> than the A's, but their skill isn't acknowledged. The <i>last</i> thing they need is some dumb C coming up and competing with them as another B. Better to kick the C's to the curb.<p>Meanwhile the A's don't care, they're on top, after all, and life is good - let me share that blog post on clean code I saw the other day to my team's channel.
> The truly great researchers are generous and friendly; so are many of the middle of the roaders.<p>Academia is a field with unique characteristics that exacerbate bitterness and frustration.<p>- People who were successful students end up with a lesser social status than their friends who followed different paths<p>- Researchers constantly compare to each other. Everybody knows the publication record of everybody else. They keep awarding themselves all sorts of prizes and titles, and at this game, most of them are on the losing side.<p>So not only they have a relatively low income, but they feel like losers at work when they feel they deserve better.
Once upon a time I played 4th (ie. worst) division amateur soccer. It was about what you’d expect, lacking in skill but not in passion.<p>Our team was terrible and we got relegated to the social league. Surprisingly (to me at least), while the skill level was lower, the stakes seemed higher. The teams we faced seemed far more willing to get physical, play dirty, abuse the referee, and generally take out Sunday kick-around far too seriously.
I was a swimmer in my childhood/youth and changed to triathlon later and thus have some datapoints still pretty much anecdotal. Basically since swimming was my best discipline, I was always put in the A lane after some time tryouts. Arriving in a new club this meant displace some other ALaner and they were not that happy usually, so i cannot see this BLane pattern.
Always look for counter-examples to the trend:<p>The B lane swimmer who manages to be a nice person. The silver medalist who's genuinely pleased to have done that well.
C probably feels spiritually close to D. B is scared anyone from C or D can shoot past them. Most A fear nothing from a C or a D and probably a B but exposed to the competitive edge of a B may act differently to them?<p>On this topic of toxic (or not: you decide) competitiveness "The master of Go" by Kawabata is a good read. Or "the Glass Bead Game" by Hermann Hesse
B lane people are can be nice if you're some kind of stepping stone to A, rather than a competitor.<p>For instance, B businesses are nicer to potential customers than some A businesses, who take customers for granted (due to monopolistic power or hubris or whatever).
Another domain you see this...political revolutions. Tend to be organized by the equivalent of the upper-middle class, rich-but-not-quite-nobility. High in social-economic status...but not quite high enough.
I’ve observed the same pattern in corporate world with folks which are close to promotion stage. Nice people suddenly become bitter and very hard to work with. Only the best stay nice.
Just thinking about this, I feel like it maps well to skill level driven stuff - you have recreational people who are easy going, those at the top who are secure, and the "petty little men" (to borrow from my experience with my high school teachers) who have a chip on their shoulder and something to prove.<p>I don't think it maps entirely to business / work though, where you can find insecure jerks at the highest levels. I was thinking about the *Gervais* "psychopath, confused, losers" framework that largely makes sense to me, and how the lanes would map. I don't think it's 1:1, as in the psychopaths are notionally the A-laners but they can still be insecure and jerks. The confused are probably the B-laners, though it's not clear they're all petty little men. And I think the losers map to the C and D just fine (note if you aren't familiar with the framework, losers isn't meant to be derogatory).<p><a href="https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...</a><p>Anyway, just my initial thought.<p>Edit: I suppose it's a stereotype more than an iron law, there are presumably jerk A-laners and nice B-laners.