What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’? -- Science of Us

What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’? -- Science of Us

I’m going to start of with a long series of quotes from an article in The Cut titled “What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’?

It’s the perennial million-dollar question of nature versus nurture, sure. But the difference between the greats and the almost-greats (which, by the way, applies well beyond sports) also appears to be at least partially driven by one specific thing — how each group responds to adversity. The greats rise to the challenge and put in persistent effort; the almost-greats lose steam and regress.  

For a recent study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, talent development researchers Dave Collins, Aine MacNamara, and Neil McCarthy examined the differences between athletes who overcame adversity and went on to become world-class (what they call super champions) and those who struggled in the face of hardship (the hearthbreakingly named “almost champions”) . Whereas super champions were playing in premier leagues and/or competing on national teams (think: Olympics), almost champions had achieved well at the youth level but were playing in the less prestigious leagues as adults. 

The researchers found that super champions were characterized “by an almost fanatical reaction to challenge.” They viewed challenges in a positive light — as opportunities to grow — and overcame them thanks to a “never satisfied” attitude. This runs in contrast to almost champions, who blamed setbacks on external causes, became negative, and lost motivation.
.... 

Super champions were driven from within. Their primary concern was self-improvement. They held themselves to high standards, but judged themselves against prior versions of themselves, not against others.
Almost champions, however, were focused on external benchmarks, like national rankings or how they compared to rivals, a mind-set the researchers speculate why almost champions got discouraged during rough patches.  

....... 

World-class performers, then, don’t rely on either nature or nurture, but on a combination of the two — and they are really good at nurturing their nature. All of which suggests the recipe that gives rise to super champions is worth emulating: Individuals who demonstrate persistent effort follow their interests; practice foremost to get better, not to outdo others; derive satisfaction from within; and feel constantly supported, but not pressured, in their journey toward achievement. If these criteria are in place, experiencing failure doesn’t weaken motivation — it bolsters it. In the words of Michael Joyner, an expert on human performance at Mayo Clinic, “With enough persistent effort, most people can get pretty good at anything.”

These results touch on a number of topics I’ve covered in previous posts: having a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset, focusing on the process rather than results, focusing inwardly on how you’re performing per your own standards instead of worrying about how you’re being perceived externally by your opponent or your friends, engaging in deliberate practice to improve, not just repeating what you already do well and not pushing yourself in practice and having grit as a personal quality. The Cut article doesn’t specifically touch on all of these points while I think they’re all implicitly involved.

I figure someone reading all of this might ask how studying world-class performers applies to us. How many of us really fall into that category? I know it will sound arrogant or obnoxious but I like to think I applied these ideas when designing and delivering presentations when I was working, in my tennis game and in other areas of my life such as relationships, etc. While I’ll probably never climb to the A level of players at the clubs where I play I do know my game has continually improved thanks to my constant investment into getting better. I like to think I’m now a B+ player! ;-) That’s why I believe the quote at the end of the article is key, which is why I’m repeating it below.

In the words of Michael Joyner, an expert on human performance at Mayo Clinic, “With enough persistent effort, most people can get pretty good at anything.”

Amen!

Puzzles versus Problems

I’m reading Elevate: An Essential Guide to Life by Joseph Deitch (Greenleaf Book Group Press, 2018) which was given to me as a Father’s Day gift by my son-in-law. (Thank you!) Deitch proposes an idea for handling challenges that caught my attention. Deitch introduces the section by talking about responding to new challenges by reminding yourself you have the basic skills to try anything rather than saying “I can’t do that” or “I haven’t learned how to do that.” “A central insight of Elevate” is that certain skills are so basic, so fundamental, so universally applicable that they drive achievement in every conceivable endeavor.”

This leads into Deitch’s idea.

One of my favorite examples of the enormous difference this mental orientation can make is based on a story told by the philosopher George Gurdjieff. Growing up in Turkey, Gurdjieff benefited from an educational system organized around solving puzzles rather than memorizing facts. As a result, he came to see the challenges life presented as a series of puzzles to be solved. Instead of thinking, “I don’t know what to do because I’ve never faced this before,” or, “I can’t do such and such because I haven’t learned how to do it yet,” he would think, “Oh, here’s another puzzle. I’ll figure it out.” ...
Inspired by Gurdjieff’s example, I learned to frame challenges as enjoyable puzzles to be solved rather than as intimidating predicaments. ... Turning situations from problems into puzzles is a universal principle with enormous ramifications.

This idea resides in the beginning of the book where he lays the groundwork for these universal skills which are fleshed out in the second half of the book. I like his idea because, like him, I believe our mind reacts differently when something is framed as a puzzle, something to figure out, rather than a challenge which is usually interpreted as something that could exceed our abilities.

I also believe there is a connection between Deitch’s idea and the “can I fix this?” approach of Bob the Builder that I have discussed in a previous post. I think the mind reacts differently if we ask ourselves “Can I figure out this puzzle? Yes, I can!” versus “I’m faced with a challenge that I have to overcome.”

I think these approaches of looking at things as puzzles and answering the question if can we figure it out with a “yes” also ties in to Carol Dweck’s growth mindset as opposed to a fixed mindset. Someone with a growth mindset sees puzzles (or challenges) as a chance to grow, to learn to do something new whereas someone with a fixed mindset sees challenges as a threat to their abilities. If they don’t figure out the answer to a challenge the fixed mindset person thinks that’s proof of their inherent limitations. On the other hand the growth mindset person concludes that not being able to solve a problem just shows where they need to improve without it lowering their self-esteem.

Can I? versus I Can!

Having read many self-help books over the years I’ve constantly encountered the idea of using positive self-talk and affirmation statements to help improve your chances of achieving your goals. Many of these books tell you to write positive “affirmation” statements. Examples would be:

• I have plenty of creativity for this project.
• My work will be recognized in a positive way by my boss and colleagues.
• My co-workers and customers respect and value my opinion.
• I am successful.
• I complete tasks and projects on time.
• I expect to be successful in all of my endeavors. Success is my natural state.
• I am courageous and I stand up for myself.
• My thoughts are positive and my life is filled with prosperity.

When I read these books years ago and tried affirmations like this I believe they helped put me in a more positive frame of mind. However, as I wrote in my April 23, 2017 post “Moving Beyond Positive Thinking”, research has shown that if we vividly visualize our goals our mind doesn’t know the difference between the imagined outcome and the actual results! We can end up having less motivation not more. In this post I refer to work done by Gabriele Oettingen, professor of psychology at New York University and the University of Hamburg and covered in her book Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation.

Daniel Pink, author of books such as Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Moving Others, reports on research that says we can be more productive by asking if we can do something then answering with a “yes” rather than declaring “I can do it.” Pink relays research done on a method used by Bob the Builder, an “overall-clad, stop-motion animated construction executive – who debuted on CBBC in 1999 and whose television programme now reaches children in 240 territories and 45 languages – is a management radical. His approach to directing projects, people and himself runs counter to the prevailing wisdom about business performance.”

Most of us believe in positive self-talk. "I can achieve anything," we mouth to the mirror in the morning. "Nobody can stop me," we tell ourselves before walking into a big meeting. We believe we'll do better if we banish doubts about our ability or our strategy and instead muster an inner voice that affirms our awesomeness.

But not Bob. Instead of puffing up himself and his team, he first wonders whether they can actually achieve their goal. In asking his signature question – Can we fix it? – he introduces some doubt.

…

In a nifty set of experiments, three social scientists explored the differences between what they call "declarative" self-talk (I will fix it!) and "interrogative" self-talk (Can I fix it?). They began by presenting a group of participants with some anagrams to solve (for example, rearranging the letters in "sauce" to spell "cause".) But before the participants tackled the problem, the researchers asked one half of them to take a minute to ask themselves whether they would complete the task – and the other half to tell themselves that they would complete the task.

The results?

The self-questioning group solved significantly more anagrams than the self-affirming group.

…

By asking "Can we fix it?", Bob widens the possibilities. Only then – once he's explored the options and examined his assumptions – does he elicit a rousing "Yes, we can" from his team and everyone gets to work.

So the next time you're feeding your inner self a heady brew of confident declarations and bold affirmations, toss in a handful of interrogatives with a few sprinkles of humility and doubt.

The research that Pink reports relates somewhat to Oettingen’s WOOP process. WOOP stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, and Plan. You define what you wish [W] to accomplish, determine the outcome [O], identify the likely obstacles [O] then design a plan [P] to overcome those obstacles.

Am I saying not to use positive affirmations? No! I think they have a place. For an interesting perspective see Scott Adams’ How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life. Adams in hardly a raving advocate of positive mental attitude but he admits to have tried positive affirmations. I think the key take away is not to expect affirmations to have magical powers that will make things happen without work or without accounting for obstacles that could derail your efforts. We need to have a positive idea where we want to go while also asking ourselves what could go wrong and what can we do to deal with it.

NOTE: for a related post on the power words can have on behavior see this post from 2013.

-->