The curse of being almost exceptional
Being close enough to winning turns out to be way damn harder than losing. Nobody needed to tell you. Somewhere early on, you worked out for yourself that you had more in you than most people around you. Things came a little easier. You could see a little further. You had, in the word everyone used, potential. Years later, the potential is still the most interesting thing about you. The work is good. The feedback is good. People you respect say you are going somewhere. And you have been going somewhere for long enough now to notice that you have not reached anywhere. You can see what the people who did reach places do differently. You have studied them. And the difference is almost nothing. A little more nerve, a little more luck, one decision made a year earlier. An inch. That inch is the whole problem. If it were a mile, you could let it go. It is an inch, so you can’t. The silver medal problem From a distance, you assume that the closer you get to something, the better you should feel. Surely the person who nearly made it is happier than the person who never came close. Well, it’s the opposite. In 1995, three psychologists took footage of Olympic medal winners and asked a group of students to rate each athlete’s face on a scale from 1 to 10. One was agony, ten was ecstasy. The people who came third looked happier than the people who came second. You see, the silver medalist is looking up, at the gold that was one race away. While the bronze medalist is looking down, at the fourth place that was one race away. Same podium, same medal ceremony, and they are comparing themselves to opposite things. And the comparison decides the feeling. Eleven years later, another team checked the findings on judo medalists from 35 countries at the Athens Olympics. Not one silver medalist smiled in the moment after their match. Gold did, bronze did, silver did not. Try applying that to your own podium. Everyone below you has an “at least.” At least I got in. At least I am doing better than I expected. At least I am doing better than my parents did. You have no “at least.” You can see the gold from where you are standing, so the only sentence available to you is “if only”. The Salieri trap “If only” is about where you look. There is a second part to the curse, and it is about how well you see. There is a famous play, later a famous film, called Amadeus. It tells the story of Mozart through the eyes of another composer, Antonio Salieri. Salieri, in the play, is the most successful musician in Vienna. He is respected, hardworking, technically excellent, the man the emperor hires. Then Mozart arrives, a rude, childish young man who writes music that Salieri instantly recognises as something he will never be able to write. That is his tragedy. He is good enough to understand how great Mozart is, but not good enough to do it himself. He has the ear, he lacks the hand. The play imagined most of this. The real-life Salieri had a fine career and probably no such rivalry. But the trap the play describes is real, and you are in it. The problem is that taste always grows faster than ability. Someone with ordinary judgment cannot tell the difference between very good and extraordinary, and that blindness protects them. They finish their work, feel fine about it, and move on. You can tell the difference. Your judgment crossed the line years ago, but your ability is still walking toward it. So you finish something. A piece of work you put effort into. And before anyone else has seen it, you already know where it falls short. You can point to the paragraph that is fine but could have been great. The idea you played safe with. The moment where someone better would have pushed further, and you pulled back. Nobody else can see these things. The people who see it will say it is good, and they will be right. You will say thank you and know that good was never what you were going for. That is the trap. The better you get at seeing, the less you can enjoy what you make, because you are judging it by a standard your hands have not reached yet. Almost is the most addictive position there is You would think a person who feels this way about their own work would eventually stop. Put it down, pick something else, find some peace. Most people in your position do the opposite. They go again, harder, for years. And the reason for that has very little to do with willpower. In 2009, researchers at Cambridge put fifteen people in a brain scanner and had them play a slot machine. What they wanted to see was the near-miss, the spin where it stopped one symbol short of a win. A near-miss is a loss. The player gets nothing. But the scans showed the parts of the brain that process reward lighting up for near-misses almost the same way they lit up for real wins. The lead researcher concluded: the brain “responds to near-misses as if a win has been delivered.” Outside the scanner, the same people said near-misses felt unpleasant. And then their desire to keep playing went up. That is you, every time you come close. The person who is nowhere near the top loses, feels it, and is free to walk away and build a different life. You never get that. Every time you fall an inch short, your brain hands you a reward and reads the loss as proof that the win is coming. So you go again. The inch stays an inch, and you cannot leave the machine. The people most stuck are the ones who keep almost getting there. The death of the local hero For most of history, being almost exceptional was a good life. If you were the second-best doctor in your city, your waiting room was full, because nobody in it had ever been treated by the best. The second-best singer in town sang to full houses, because the best singer in the world was a rumour from somewhere else. Distance protected the very good. Every town had its own top, and the top paid well. In 1981, an economist described what happens when that distance disappears. When everyone can reach the best, they do, and the market stops needing the second-best. In his words, “small differences in talent become magnified in large earnings differences.” He wrote that before the internet existed. Since then, every market that could go global has gone global. Music, writing, software, comedy, teaching, advice. Everyone now hears the best, so everyone now competes with the best, and work that is 95% as good earns a small fraction of the reward instead of 95% of it. The gap between you and the exceptional did not grow. It is the same inch it has always been. What grew is the gap in what the two sides of it get paid. Your parents could be very good at something and be rewarded for it. You can be very good and watch the entire payout go to someone an inch ahead. What almost does to a person Here is what nobody tells the kid with potential. You have been treating your magic as the curse. You can see the inch. The person far below you cannot. They look at the top and see a different species, something they could never become, so they never try. You look at the top and see one decision, one risk, one braver draft. That is a map. Nobody else in the room has it. You can see every tiny flaw in your own work. That is exactly what someone with ordinary judgment lacks, and it is why they stay ordinary. They cannot fix what they cannot see. You can point to the paragraph that played it safe. You know which idea you pulled back from. That is the most precise set of instructions you will ever be given about what to do next, and it comes from inside your own head. And your brain fires like a win every time you come close. Inside a slot machine, that is a trap, because a slot machine is random and the near-miss means nothing. Your work is the opposite of random. When your brain tells you that you are close, it is right. So the grind was never the mistake. The mistake was where it was aimed. Years of effort pointed at the person one inch ahead, at catching them, at matching them, and almost none of it pointed at the potential you could already see in your own work. The “if only” will be there the whole time. That is the price of being in the race to win. But the people who crossed were standing exactly where you are standing, seeing exactly what you see. They aimed at their work instead of the person. Thank you for reading. Subscribe below to receive more of my work. Sources.
