internal vs. external competition

thanks again for subscribing, i really appreciate it. please send me any feedback you may have. these writings are random musings—most of my content stems from conversations with my friends or random thoughts in shower.

this long form piece is an expansion of my original post on X:

the idea that you’re only competing with yourself is a feel-good simplification. it works in some contexts but is delusional in others. the key distinction is between zero-sum and positive-sum games.

zero-sum games: competition is external

a zero-sum game is where one person’s gain is another’s loss. if there are limited resources, opportunities, or rewards, then you’re competing against others, period.

• getting into a top university: admissions slots are finite. if 100,000 people apply & they only take 2,000, your competition isn’t “your past self”—it’s 98,000 other people.

• getting a high-paying job: companies don’t hire everyone who’s “good enough.” they pick the best relative to other applicants. the job market is a ranked competition.

• winning an election: only one person gets the presidency, the mayor’s seat, or the startup investment. someone else has to lose.

• social status & influence: if you want to be at the top of an industry or dominate a cultural space, you need to displace or outperform others. attention is a scarce resource.

telling yourself “i’m only competing with myself” in these situations is cope. in zero-sum games, you have to measure your performance relative to others or you’ll just lose.

positive-sum games: competition is internal

positive-sum games are where success isn’t limited—where one person winning doesn’t mean another loses. here, competing with yourself makes more sense.

• getting fit: nobody else gets in worse shape if you improve your bench press. your gains don’t come at someone else’s expense.

• learning a new skill: if you get better at programming, it doesn’t make someone else worse at it.

• building a startup in an untapped market: if the space isn’t saturated, your success doesn’t mean failure for others. it actually grows the market.

• art & creativity: if you write a great book or make a beautiful painting, that doesn’t mean someone else loses. it just adds to the cultural landscape.

in these cases, competing with yourself—trying to be better than you were yesterday—is actually the best mindset. measuring yourself against others might even be counterproductive.

the danger: misidentifying the game you’re in

problems happen when people mistake a zero-sum game for a positive-sum one, or vice versa.

• corporate promotions: if you act like you’re only competing with yourself but your peers are playing cutthroat office politics, you’re going to get blindsided.

• entrepreneurship: if you’re in a hypercompetitive market & think there’s room for everyone, you might get eaten alive by a rival who understands how winner-take-all dynamics work.

• education: if you assume learning is purely positive-sum & ignore that elite institutions gatekeep, you might not optimize for credentials & networking, which do matter.

bottom line

the “compete with yourself” mantra is only useful in contexts where success isn’t about outperforming others. in zero-sum environments, it’s a lie that will make you weak. the real skill is knowing which game you’re playing & adopting the right mindset accordingly.