It’s possible that naming the part of us that makes us lose is oversimplifying the problem. We can consciously come up with rationalizations for why achieving one result counts as a “win” and another result as a “loss”. But clean win/lose states don’t exist in real life, which is much more messy. Instead winning and losing is achieving different results.
Is it possible that Bruce is just playing a different game, rather than solely attempting to make “me” lose my game? Bruce may actually be the person who wants things that we can’t easily rationalize that we (me and Bruce as one person) want.
I can play a game of bowling against a beautiful woman and tell myself “I want to win this game”. However, if Bruce has reason to think that losing is going to help my cause with the woman more than winning, and Bruce knows he wants that woman, then he may try to win his game at the expense of me winning mine. My lazy brain can’t come up with the reasons why Bruce want’s to throw a gutter ball (to get the woman) and Bruce can’t figure out why I’m trying to throw strikes (to achieve my conscious win-state). If Bruce wins then my conscious mind is mad at Bruce for causing the loss without understanding why he did it (my brain is too lazy to figure it out).
Maybe if I beat Bruce then he may similarly be able to make my victory bittersweet without me being able to rationalize the reason for it, thus giving more reason to cave to Bruce in the future.
You made me think: Is there some possible evolutionary advantage of having a Bruce? Or more precisely, is there an instinct that would do something useful 100000 years ago, which makes us self-sabotage today?
Perhaps there is an instinct “not to appear much more successful than the rest of your tribe”. Because there is a competition inside your tribe. Success is good, but it also brings enemies, any you may not be ready to face them. So unless you are ready to fight them all and become a leader of your tribe, it is better to sabotage yourself sometimes.
This instinct was fine-tuned to an ancient environment, and is not so necessary today (unless there is a Khmer Rouge revolution around the corner). But if you are smarter that the average, sometimes the instinct may kick in after an unconscious decision that you are already “dangerously successful”.
More precisely, the instinct is somehow valid today too (success still brings you enemies), but it sometimes mistakenly assigns too much danger to relatively small success. Maybe it is related to the size and degree of specialization in our “tribe”—in ancient world, when you were in top 1% at something, you were probably the best in your tribe; nowadays just studying something or doing some sport or game easily puts in top 1% of population with regard to that specific thing.
I had this idea too. I think Bruce is an agent of social order. He causes us to lose to keep us on good terms with those around us.
I think he applies on a level even shallower than “I’m afraid if I enter the top 1% of success, my competition will be far too strong.”, rather Bruce is eyeballing the situation and thinking. “If I win I get positive X1 and negative Y1, if I give up I get positive X2 and negative Y2, if I lose while seemingly trying to win I get positive X3 and negative Y3.” And deems the combination X3 and Y3 to be the most favorable of all of them.
It’s possible that naming the part of us that makes us lose is oversimplifying the problem. We can consciously come up with rationalizations for why achieving one result counts as a “win” and another result as a “loss”. But clean win/lose states don’t exist in real life, which is much more messy. Instead winning and losing is achieving different results.
Is it possible that Bruce is just playing a different game, rather than solely attempting to make “me” lose my game? Bruce may actually be the person who wants things that we can’t easily rationalize that we (me and Bruce as one person) want.
I can play a game of bowling against a beautiful woman and tell myself “I want to win this game”. However, if Bruce has reason to think that losing is going to help my cause with the woman more than winning, and Bruce knows he wants that woman, then he may try to win his game at the expense of me winning mine. My lazy brain can’t come up with the reasons why Bruce want’s to throw a gutter ball (to get the woman) and Bruce can’t figure out why I’m trying to throw strikes (to achieve my conscious win-state). If Bruce wins then my conscious mind is mad at Bruce for causing the loss without understanding why he did it (my brain is too lazy to figure it out).
Maybe if I beat Bruce then he may similarly be able to make my victory bittersweet without me being able to rationalize the reason for it, thus giving more reason to cave to Bruce in the future.
You made me think: Is there some possible evolutionary advantage of having a Bruce? Or more precisely, is there an instinct that would do something useful 100000 years ago, which makes us self-sabotage today?
Perhaps there is an instinct “not to appear much more successful than the rest of your tribe”. Because there is a competition inside your tribe. Success is good, but it also brings enemies, any you may not be ready to face them. So unless you are ready to fight them all and become a leader of your tribe, it is better to sabotage yourself sometimes.
This instinct was fine-tuned to an ancient environment, and is not so necessary today (unless there is a Khmer Rouge revolution around the corner). But if you are smarter that the average, sometimes the instinct may kick in after an unconscious decision that you are already “dangerously successful”.
More precisely, the instinct is somehow valid today too (success still brings you enemies), but it sometimes mistakenly assigns too much danger to relatively small success. Maybe it is related to the size and degree of specialization in our “tribe”—in ancient world, when you were in top 1% at something, you were probably the best in your tribe; nowadays just studying something or doing some sport or game easily puts in top 1% of population with regard to that specific thing.
I had this idea too. I think Bruce is an agent of social order. He causes us to lose to keep us on good terms with those around us.
I think he applies on a level even shallower than “I’m afraid if I enter the top 1% of success, my competition will be far too strong.”, rather Bruce is eyeballing the situation and thinking. “If I win I get positive X1 and negative Y1, if I give up I get positive X2 and negative Y2, if I lose while seemingly trying to win I get positive X3 and negative Y3.” And deems the combination X3 and Y3 to be the most favorable of all of them.