For most Olympics viewers, winning a silver medal at the Games would seem pretty impressive. For the silver medalists themselves, however, their feat can be disappointing. Victoria Medvec, a psychologist, studied Olympians and found that bronze medalists are actually happier than silver medalists, who dwell on thoughts about “what might have been.” Bronze medalists are simply happy they made the podium at all. Medvec points to a 1996 Nike ad which sums up the disappointment many silver medalists feel: “You don’t win silver – you lose gold.” (HT: Marginal Revolution) [%comments]
Losing the Gold
TAGS: olympics
and 
. You can also watch it on 
That’s the mentality that leaves me with no desire to watch any competition played at very high level. Just look at the result from the downhill race in the current games:
http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-alpine-skiing/schedule-and-results/mens-downhill_asm010101PX.html
The first 15 (FIFTEEN) finished within 1 (ONE) second time. The difference between the gold and silver medalists is 7/100 of a second. The difference between the silver and bronze medalists is 2/100 of a second. Now, who really believes that the winner is so much better than the others that he gets the gold and the rest get nothing?
Yet, Kirilius, we can count on the favorites to actually win. They must be doing something better than the 15th place finisher, even though it’s only a second difference.
Since there is a number 2, there is a number 1. Everyone can’t be number 1, yes it frustrates. But life all gives a second chance
one thing about Social science, we can all be number one with a bit of effort. So with eventual loss, there is a real basis for mutual gain. Sorta reminds me of that talent show where singers compete. The winner does not get all. It seems that those who make the most of their opportunity to be in the limelight benefit in some way and sometimes more than the winner. Obviously, the aim is different in science. Nonetheless, there is a similarity. Sorta reminds me of Madonna. She understands how effective marketing can be of an idea and how to “work an audience.” Einstein apparently had that talent as well. I learned from both as well as from my husband. He used to call himself “fanatical mechanical.”
Lee, that’s the thing. I am not sure the #1 does something better than #2. If you have a few hundreds of a second differene, to me that means nothing. Anything can account for that. That “anything” includes skill and practice of course but it also includes things like: what you ate/didn’t eat last night; did you sleep well; is your aerodynamic suit 2 gramms heavier or lighter, did the wind blow stronger when your turn came to go downhill. We are talking about split seconds here.
Ricky Bobby for the win.
On the other side of the coin, Apolo Ohno was very happy to place second in the 1500m speedskate. Expectations seem to play a key role in someone’s level of excitement at their final standing; these competitions don’t happen in a vacuum. A favorite going in is surely to be disappointed at second, but an underdog or first time competitor might be content to be in the running. To one who foresaw immenent failure, relative success can be more thrilling than the win.
Gee, the incredible athletes who end #2 in the world are failures? That idea is so weird to me. What achievements they make, why try to denigrate them?
I agree with Kirilius that in many cases, there’s no practical differences between the top finishers. A second or two doesn’t change the accomplishment. Random chance would be just about as definitive.
Winner take all contests are absurdly reductive. There are some events where the top athletes are equally good and exchange first-place wins over a year or two, because life doesn’t occur on a curve.