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.
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.