- File Size: 1381 KB
- Print Length: 325 pages
- Page Numbers Source ISBN: 1455515140
- Publisher: Twelve (February 19, 2013)
- Publication Date: February 19, 2013
- Sold by: Hachette Book Group
- Language: English
- ASIN: B0092XHOGE
- Text-to-Speech:
Enabled
- Word Wise: Enabled
- Lending: Not Enabled
-
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#496,175 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
- #135 in Sports & Entertainment Industry (Kindle Store)
- #776 in Social Psychology & Interactions
- #226 in Sports Industry
Buying Options
| Print List Price: | $16.00 |
| Kindle Price: |
$9.99
Save $6.01 (38%) |
| Sold by: |
Hachette Book Group
Price set by seller. |
Follow the Authors
OK
Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing Kindle Edition
|
Po Bronson
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author?
Learn about Author Central
|
|
Ashley Merryman
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author?
Learn about Author Central
|
|
Price
|
New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
Free with your Audible trial | ||
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$2.78 | $2.39 |
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Customers who bought this item also bought
Editorial Reviews
Review
About the Author
Amazon.com Review
Q&A with Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman
Q. Are you refuting the concept that it takes ten years of practice to get great at anything?
Po Bronson: Not at all, we feel our book is additive to that story. Nobody is judged on how they practice. They're judged on how they perform when it counts. Practicing is not the same as competing. You can pitch a million baseballs to your son until he perfects his swing--but wait until he faces a pitcher who wants him to miss. You might have ten years of experience in the advertising industry, but how do you handle the day your biggest client tells you they're leaving for a rival agency?
Ashley Merryman: The truth is, nobody puts in ten years before they start competing. The world doesn't work that way. We are all thrown into competitive situations, long before we've had enough practice. Our results are still judged; our fate is still determined by how we do. To survive these trials, we need more than practice. We need competitive fire.
Q. Did researching this book change how you each compete?
Ashley Merryman: I'm a girl. All my life, I've been told to "play nice." I heard it on the playground and then the grown-up version they say in boardrooms: women are better at coalition-building, not competing. The science says that's wrong. And it's not just about toughening up. Women are prone to weigh risks more carefully than men; when women are confident they have a good chance to succeed, they'll compete. Sometimes this is an asset (in certain domains), but sometimes it's a hindrance. I've learned to recognize when to tap into my gender's knack for risk-analysis, and when to ignore it.
Po Bronson: I didn't let many people know it, but before working on this book, I'd had a full-hip replacement and a few unsuccessful surgeries on my leg. I had many setbacks during rehab; I could barely walk at times. This affected every dimension of my life--it sapped my energy for my writing work and my volunteer projects. I was just losing my edge and my will to fight. Researching the book inspired me; it reminded me who I am. It restored my zeal for attacking big challenges. I hope the book does that for readers, first and foremost: gets them eager to surmount the challenges in their lives.
Q. Everyone says that companies must innovate to remain competitive--but does it work the other way around? Doesn't competition destroy creativity?
Po Bronson: There is a belief that creative genius is fragile and needs to be shielded from competition and comparison. But the research says that's a myth. Leonardo da Vinci loved to have his art put side by side with the work of others for debate over whose was best; Bach, too, liked to compete against other musicians in public concerts. Chemical fire extinguishers, food canning, transcontinental air travel--each began as the prize winner of a competition. Competition doesn't kill creativity: it facilitates creative output by supplying motivational drive.
Ashley Merryman: Whether professional musicians or school children, studies have shown competition fuels creativity and even improves the quality of the work produced. More than that, the skills that make you a great competitor--such as a willingness to push boundaries, trust one's instincts, problem-solve--those are the same skills needed for innovation.
From Booklist
Product detailsWould you like to tell us about a lower price? |
Customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The nice thing about the authors is they are basing their book off of countless scientific studies. You don't get a lot of trite statements or colloquialisms. The authors are good at taking the evidence of these studies and creating a compelling story.
In the end, I learned several things about the differences between men and women in terms of competition, anxiety levels in competitors, playing not to lose, etc. I just wish there was more coverage on teams and the inner dynamics of winning teams.
Well written. Well researched. A good solid read.
Having said all this, I still easily recommend this book for people who are curious about what makes people perform well.
First, the basics of how stress and our reaction to it work. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that produces adrenaline, the body's way of contfronting on stressful situations. COMT is an enzyme that degrades dopamine. People's bodies produce varying levels of dopamine, low dopamine levels leading to an overall competition-avoiding personality, etc. These two 'work together' to determine how a person will react to stress and competition. If your body produces a lot of dopamine naturally, but also produces a high level of COMT (to degrade the dopamine), you may handle stress and competition quite well. If you produce the same high level of dopamine but have a low level of COMT (meaning less dopamine is degraded), you may end up being the type who gets stressed very easily, "overreacting" to mildly stressful situations. Low dopamine levels and high COMT may produce someone who doesn't react strongly enough in stressful or competitive situations. Etc.
But the book also talks about the differences in how men and women generally compete. Conventional wisdom tends to say that women aren't very competitive naturally (and those who are have simply learned to get on in a man's competitive world. But like much common wisdom, there is only a grain of truth to this. Pouring over studies of behavior and neuroscience, the authors make a case that women are as competitive as men, but simply are more judicious about when they enter competition.... generally when they believe they have a realistic chance of winning. Women, in other words, look at the odds of whether they have a chance to win, and if they think they do, they compete every bit as hard as men. Men, on the other hand, tend to place more emphasis on what they would gain if they did win (than what their chances are of winning). The authors do refrain from suggesting that one strategy is better than the other; in fact, both strategies may have evolved because they have survival value in different contexts. But they do give some surprising stats showing, for instance, that women investors and money managers have a better track record with their somewhat more conservative strategy than men, who frequently make riskier investment choices.
There are some other great challenges to the conventional wisdom here. Foremost is a reassessment of what testosterone and oxytocin are and do. For a long time, scientists told us that testosterone was simply the "aggression drug" and that oxytocin is the "care/empathy drug." It turns out that things are quite a bit more complicated than this. Studies are showing that testosterone can not only increase one's aggression, but increase allegiance with a group when that group is in competition with another group. (Soccor players with high levels of testosterone seem more likely to do things like pass the ball and assist so that team mates can score.) Similarly, oxytocin does not just increase care and empathy, but care and empathy toward those in one's in-group (it also increases aggression against those in the out-group).
Lastly, I think an overall message we should take from the book is that competition is not necessarily the bad, intrinsic-motivation-killing, thing (especially when kids are concerned) that we have been told it is by the "self-esteem movement." Yes, some people do not thrive, but wither, when they are faced with competitive situations. But most actually do better when they compete either against themselves or others. Kids who compete often learn to care more about the activity they are doing (sport, music, etc) than those who do not compete at those same activities. Competition also helps people learn to deal with being in stressful situations, both at how to be successful in them AND cope with lack of success. (Of course, they are also careful to acknowledge that healthy competition has necessary conditions, like competitors being mindful of sticking to rules of fair play, and the competition being designed so that competitors believe it to be a fair fight.)
Overall, this book was very interesting to read. While written in a easy-going style, there is much information here, and those wanting to look at the more scholarly literature will find a large section of citations pointing them to articles they can pursue further. Teacher, parents, company executives, and just the generally interested lay public should all be able to find something in this book that can help them understand why and how we (should) compete.
Top international reviews
The authors compile a pretty strong case that competition fosters creativity and best efforts from individuals. Drawing largely on the worlds of sports and business, they suggest that competition is a necessary component for success. They also cite neurological and hormonal evidence for how the body responds positively to competition, at least for people who embrace rather than fear competition. They build a relatively compelling case, but there are some important flaws.
First, they do not discuss the science of losing and how the body and brain respond to inevitable failures. In this regard, the recent book The Hour Between Dog and Wolf offers a more complete science of winning and losing. Second, by failing to ignore the consequences of failure, they overestimate the value of competition. Look at Wall Street and what rampant competition for bonuses has done. Granted, there is government protection from failure, but that is due to another form of competition- lobbying. Competition has also failed to bring more women into high finance, despite their superior performance in that arena. Third, some of their evidence is misleading. The top 10% of physicists publish 50% of the research because they win 50% of the grant money. There is actually good evidence that creativity in science is a matter of chance. More frequent publishers make more frequent significant discoveries, but it's hard to tease apart whether that's because they have the better funding, labs, and students to do so versus the better mental ability to do so. Fourth, there are many times when competition and risk taking is not your best choice. It helps win wars, but it also helps get you killed in war. Fifth, they don't discuss the biggest competitors and risk-takers: young men. Daly & Wilson's book Homicide does a great job illuminating how young men are programmed to task risks to gain status (and thus mates). This underlies much of the risk-taking and competitive differences the authors see between men (who are relatively blind to risk when chasing rewards) versus women (who need good odds before chasing rewards). Drawing on the same evolutionary evidence as Bronson and Merryman, we now know that an "ancestral" woman who dies in competition will almost certainly result in the death of her young children. The same is not true of a man, as the man stands to benefit much more from winning status competitions such as multiple mates (most human societies were polygynous). This naturally biases men to be reward-focused while women are risk-averse (in general). It also explains why women are dyadic in their competitions while men are both individual and group-oriented. As I discussed with Joyce Beneson (the researcher's whose work they cite on this issue), men can be ruthlessly dyadic under the right circumstances (e.g., competing over a woman) while also capable of ignoring dyadic issues (e.g., when threatened by another group of men). It's not that men don't compete dyadically, they simply have a higher threshold for when such competition becomes important as it could otherwise be a threat to male solidarity and group defense. I could go on, but suffice to say I think the authors tackled a really big topic and are missing out on numerous details (some small, some major).
So why four stars? Well, there's still plenty of solid science here and the authors are good writers. They do a good job bringing an interesting issue to light. The book could benefit from better balance in discussing all sides of competition, including losing and a lack of risk taking in order to fully be the science of winning and losing. If you're looking for a book on the science of winning and losing, this is a two or three star book. Instead, this book should be called Top Dog: The Science of Competing. In that regard, especially if you take the results with a grain of salt, it's definitely a four-star book and one I enjoyed reading. I certainly sympathize with their overall conclusion that healthy competition is a good thing that we should both encourage and strengthen ourselves towards.
Like the authors' previous joint work - Nurtureshock: Why Everything We Thought About Children is Wrong - the book heavily relies on up to date science but never strays too deep. This means it will more than satisfy the casual reader but may leave people, who have previously already explored the topic somewhat, not completely satisfied.
Just like in Nurtureshock: Why Everything We Thought About Children is Wrong one can only compliment the authors for not trying to squeeze a myriad examples into a limited framework, which would make it both bloated and repetitive. While there are plenty of examples given, they are used to develop the topic further, to explore the effects of our genetic endowment, as well as those that come from our nurturing in the formative years, and from the competitive context we are put into.
The real value of the book in my eyes also lies in comparing and contrasting different approaches, as well as indirectly advising how to ameliorate our inborn attitudes to competition. One for instance learns how boys compete differently from girls, and what effect that has on career success later on in life; what type of educational environment is most suited to which gender child, as well as to which competitive profile; how sports success can be achieved even by people who are more worriers than warriors; why so few women actually enter high level politics or top managerial positions (it is not exclusively discrimination that plays a role (and this is not just a chauvinistic male position, as one of the authors is herself female)), etc.
In style it is very much like a Malcolm Gladwell book (think The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference or Outliers: The Story of Success), meaning very readable and quite informative at the same time, and definitely erring on the side of readability, rather than depth.
So if you want to better understand why certain people - be they your children, partner, friends and family, colleagues or yourself - compete in specific ways, or get tips on how to alter the environment to make them or yourself more successful at it, the book is a very good start. It will not be an in-depth scientific treatise (a full list of references is provided for those interested in further reading) but will probably allow you to dip your toes into the topic sufficiently deeply, to at least seriously consider further 'competition' choices more thoroughly, or to understand the outcomes better.
Son défaut : il manque de ligne directrice et d'une structure claire. Il fourmille d'idées et d'exemples mais il est difficile à suivre et à mémoriser dans son ensemble.
Ses qualités :
- il s'appuie sur de multiples travaux scientifiques qui rendent les démonstrations captivantes, surprenantes et convaincantes.
- il (re)met en lumière les vertus de la valeur "compétition", qui est souvent aujourd'hui décriée au profit de la coopération. Or les deux sont nécessaires au développement de la société (lire aussi sur ce point le beaucoup plus ardu : "Civilization: The West and the Rest").
- il éclaire véritablement d'un jour nouveau les différences hommes-femmes face aux situations compétitives (recrutement, promotion, politique etc.), bien au-delà des généralités habituelles.
C'est vraiment un excellent bouquin.
A 2.5 material
You've read the top international reviews
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
There's a problem loading this menu right now.













