My working definition is that ambition is basically neuroticism plus competitiveness, with the former defined as something like 'inability to accept one's self and one's situation uncritically' and the latter as simply 'desire to win'. At the extremes the 2x2 would be
(Low neuroticism)(low competitiveness)- Laid-back people, contented housewives, 'it's not much but it's honest work'. Eg. The Dude.
(High neuroticism)(low competitiveness)- chronic anhedonics, complainers & worrywarts. Eg. Every Woody Allen character.
(Low neuroticism)(high competitiveness)- Typical 'winners' who compete until satisfied & then relax. Eg. Chad Thundercock.
(Hugh neuroticism)(high competitiveness)- People for whom every setback is a challenge & no victory is ever sufficient. Eg. Every conqueror, usurper, visionary and notably 'driven' person.
As a low/low, I kind of feel bad for highly ambitious people. Only a few of them actually get to be legends, most burn out or get crushed (being hypercompetitive doesn't neccessarily make you hypercompetent) and being highly neurotic doesn't sound like much fun even for the billionaires. But I can definitely appreciate the benefits of their existence, preferably far away from me.
Hmm. I don't know. I'm not a billionaire and haven't read any of their biographies, so I feel like I could look into whether your model is right or not...
But my first intuition is that there's a way to do the thing without it sucking? Something where you have an enlightened Buddhist growth mindset sort of shape to your analysis of your failings, and all improvement with respect to your goals is euphoric to you. Then you shape your goals such that you are a maximizer rather than a satisficer, or such that you are a satisficer of things you have determined to be great works.
This is the kind of mindset I try to cultivate. But I'm a loser in terms of current attainment of status, money, or great works, so I can't guarantee that there's an actual path there that works for achieving 'greatness'.
More generally, I'm just skeptical that your proposed architecture- high neuroticism, high competitiveness, is the only architecture that leads to greatness... or perhaps that it has to feel bad. I could be convinced that it's the only one that works for humans if all the billionaires pattern match to it... but there should be other architectures that work in principle.
As a high/high on your quadrant (competence would be a different issue however) - it’s weird to think that other people don’t have these sorts of worries and drives gnawing at them 24/7. To me, it’s just the way life is. So it’s always good to be reminded that there are people who experience the world in such a fundamentally different way.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My working definition is that ambition is basically neuroticism plus competitiveness, with the former defined as something like 'inability to accept one's self and one's situation uncritically' and the latter as simply 'desire to win'. At the extremes the 2x2 would be
As a low/low, I kind of feel bad for highly ambitious people. Only a few of them actually get to be legends, most burn out or get crushed (being hypercompetitive doesn't neccessarily make you hypercompetent) and being highly neurotic doesn't sound like much fun even for the billionaires. But I can definitely appreciate the benefits of their existence, preferably far away from me.
Hmm. I don't know. I'm not a billionaire and haven't read any of their biographies, so I feel like I could look into whether your model is right or not...
But my first intuition is that there's a way to do the thing without it sucking? Something where you have an enlightened Buddhist growth mindset sort of shape to your analysis of your failings, and all improvement with respect to your goals is euphoric to you. Then you shape your goals such that you are a maximizer rather than a satisficer, or such that you are a satisficer of things you have determined to be great works.
This is the kind of mindset I try to cultivate. But I'm a loser in terms of current attainment of status, money, or great works, so I can't guarantee that there's an actual path there that works for achieving 'greatness'.
More generally, I'm just skeptical that your proposed architecture- high neuroticism, high competitiveness, is the only architecture that leads to greatness... or perhaps that it has to feel bad. I could be convinced that it's the only one that works for humans if all the billionaires pattern match to it... but there should be other architectures that work in principle.
More options
Context Copy link
As a high/high on your quadrant (competence would be a different issue however) - it’s weird to think that other people don’t have these sorts of worries and drives gnawing at them 24/7. To me, it’s just the way life is. So it’s always good to be reminded that there are people who experience the world in such a fundamentally different way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link