To clarify my view, desire to win is not in itself harmful, it’s pretty much a prerequisite for participation. It is when this is elevated over other values that it causes problems for yourself or for others.

You both make excellent points about trying too hard and going all out to win at all costs. Certainly, arguing with referees and cheating are very un-Stoic. Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius made it clear that doing the right thing is central, and the outcome is secondary. And I would agree that paradoxically, focusing less on winning and more on specific performance goals generally leads to a better result.

Still, I have some discomfort with the advice to focus only on what you can “control”. This begs the factual question of what it is that you can control. Sure, you cannot absolutely control outcomes such as winning a tennis match. But how far do you compromise in your effort to win? Are you in control of just making good groundstrokes? Can’t you train to get to the net faster? If you care more and sharpen your attention, can you accomplish more than you thought?

I don’t play a lot of tennis, but I have been learning to rockclimb lately. I notice that it is always a choice as to whether I can make a harder effort to make a difficult move, or give up and say I did my best and can’t go farther. It’s not a black and white situation of what is in my control or not, because there is choice and volition involved. Personal attitude could play a role some day if I’m on a dangerous climb….or in some life and death situation.

In practicing or training for martial arts or other “games”, I fully agree that a desire to win can become a counterproductive. However, in real life tests of survival, business success, or war — a desire to win may be crucial. And implemented correctly, a desire to win does not mean having to compromise one’s integrity and cheating or violating moral standards.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_87.htm

And below I’ve pasted the relevant excerpt from that page:

Goal Setting Theory

Locke’s research showed that there was a relationship between how difficult and specific a goal was and people’s performance of a task. He found that specific and difficult goals led to better task performance than vague or easy goals.

Telling someone to “Try hard” or “Do your best” is less effective than “Try to get more than 80% correct” or “Concentrate on beating your best time.” Likewise, having a goal that’s too easy is not a motivating force. Hard goals are more motivating than easy goals, because it’s much more of an accomplishment to achieve something that you have to work for.

A few years after Locke published his article, another researcher, Dr Gary Latham, studied the effect of goal setting in the workplace. His results supported exactly what Locke had found, and the inseparable link between goal setting and workplace performance was formed.

In 1990, Locke and Latham published their seminal work, “A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.” In this book, they reinforced the need to set specific and difficult goals, and they outlined three other characteristics of successful goal setting.

PS super site, such a lot of powerful insights

I like your comments, especially your point that the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators may not be so clear:

Just because your motivation is intrinsic vs extrinsic you are not suddenly less capable or less committed to your cause. We are used to external motivators in our society now, but the difference is largely in how it affects the subjective experience of what happens…In most cases our “extrinsic motivators” are just misunderstood and non-evaluated intrinsic motivators.

What I was objecting to in Irvine’s account came from his account of how a Stoic would approach playing tennis: the focus shifts from winning to making one’s best effort. My first reaction was that this provides too easy an excuse for losing: “Oh well, I tried my best”. But reading Irvine more closely, his idea of trying one’s best also includes rigorously training for the upcoming tennis match, and focusing on doing all that is “within one’s power” to succeed. And perhaps by becoming more internally focused on making the best effort — which includes training, a focus on good form, proper rest and nutrition, etc. — rather than on winning, one ends up better prepared and less psychologically distracted by too much of a goal focus.

I’ve actually found this to be true, for example, in my work projects, where I now focus much more on good preparation and am less stressed about the actual outcome. And your point about the extrinsic/instrinsic distinction perhaps being a false dichotomy is making me rethink my initial objection to Irvine…and maybe even to Buddhist “detachment”. But I suppose I would want to see some examples of real flesh-and-blood Buddhists “heros” who prevailed to accomplish difficult goals in the face of adversity. Perhaps you could suggest some role models here?

Thanks again for the good discussion.

In general I liked this post. I found your website only recently. I am somewhat disappointed in your views of both Buddhism and Stoicism though. Despite the pop-culture image of Buddhists as being resigned to their fate I see it more as a question of scope. Yes, as Bertrand Russell said “An open mind is an empty mind”, it is possible to take such a wide and all-inclusive view of things that they all become meaningless and indistinct, but it is up to each Buddhist to find the point of balance in their life..just as each Stoic defines their own sphere of choice.

I do agree with you though that, as in hormeticism, you can change the degree to which you can possibly affect the world. But, If a Stoic were to truly devote themselves to an intrinsic goal, part of accomplishing that goal would be to do those things needed to accomplish it (including expanding their sphere of choice). So, with Washington crossing the Delaware, it could be as you said (which is a very American interpretation of things), or it could be that a George Washington truly devoted to giving his best for a cause of his choosing would not have been giving his best Stoic effort if he did not behave exactly as he did.

Just because your motivation is intrinsic vs extrinsic you are not suddenly less capable or less committed to your cause. We are used to external motivators in our society now, but the difference is largely in how it affects the subjective experience of what happens. In history, Washington had no real control over whether the things he did won or lost the war (having gave the same effort either way), but he was able to choose how he judged his own actions.

In most cases our “extrinsic motivators” are just misunderstood and non-evaluated intrinsic motivators. I buy a thing, or do a thing, or feel attachment to somebody because of how I want to express my character to myself, not to others, even if my self narrative says otherwise. The way we usually phrase it to ourselves is just needlessly psychologically damaging.

Sorry for the long post. I did like the article, and I thank you for your work on this blog….I have never heard of hormetism before now.