Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Unavailable
    Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing
    Unavailable
    Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing
    Unavailable
    Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing
    Audiobook9 hours

    Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing

    Written by Ashley Merryman

    4/5

    ()

    Currently unavailable

    Currently unavailable

    About this audiobook

    New York Times Bestseller

    Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman's work changes the national dialogue. Beyond their bestselling books, you know them from commentary and features in the New York Times, CNN, NPR, Time, Newsweek, Wired, New York, and more. E-mail, Facebook, and Twitter accounts are filled with demands to read their reporting (such as "How Not to Talk to Your Kids," "Creativity Crisis," and "Losing Is Good for You").


    In TOP DOG, Bronson and Merryman again use their astonishing blend of science and storytelling to reveal what's truly in the heart of a champion. The joy of victory and the character-building agony of defeat. Testosterone and the neuroscience of mistakes. Why rivals motivate. How home field advantage gets you a raise. What teamwork really requires. It's baseball, the SAT, sales contests, and Linux. How before da Vinci and FedEx were innovators, first, they were great competitors.

    Olympians carry TOP DOG in their gym bags. It's in briefcases of Wall Street traders and Madison Avenue madmen. Risk takers from Silicon Valley to Vegas race to implement its ideas, as educators debate it in halls of academia. Now see for yourself what this game-changing talk is all about.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherHachette Audio
    Release dateFeb 19, 2013
    ISBN9781611130133
    Unavailable
    Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing

    Related to Top Dog

    Related audiobooks

    Anthropology For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      ‘Iconic War Of Words’

      Sep 21, 2023

      ‘Iconic War Of Words’
      4 min read

    • Article

      Gaffing His Way To The Presidency?

      Mar 12, 2020

      The modern media trend is to make fun of President Trump for his alleged and actual misstatements of fact. You have to go a long way -- in this case Sky News in Australia -- to find a media outlet willing to make fun of a U.S. liberal Democrat. The h

      2 min read

    • Article

      Leader Of The New School

      Mar 29, 2019

      Leader Of The New School
      7 min read

    • Article

      Sanders: Americans Care More About $1,400 Checks From Aid Plan Than Lack Of GOP Votes

      Mar 13, 2021

      Sen. Bernie Sanders, who helped shepherd the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan through Congress, says the package is "the most consequential piece of legislation for working families" in decades.

      4 min read

    • Article

      DON’T TRUST your GUT

      Feb 17, 2023

      DON’T TRUST your GUT
      8 min read

    • Article

      Back Catalogue

      Jan 15, 2020

      It became known as a Brad Pitt movie, or a really bad buzzword when your team went cheap in its offseason signings. Worse still: when Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, described their presidential election victory as “moneyballing the elector

      1 min read

    • Article

      Bend the Knee

      Jun 4, 2020

      Bend the Knee
      3 min read

    • Article

      12 Questions: Sledge

      May 20, 2021

      12 Questions: Sledge
      3 min read

    • Article

      Rumors amuse USC's Darnold

      Nov 29, 2017

      LOS ANGELES_Sam Darnold learned he disliked the Cleveland Browns a few days after the rest of the world did. He was not listening when the news originated on Colin Cowherd's radio show in a vaguely sourced "little nugget" relayed by Sports Illustrate

      4 min read

    • Article

      Ollie Robinson’s Tweets Reflect A Societal Problem Far Beyond Cricket

      Jun 10, 2021

      The dab. The floss. The mannequin challenge. Cricket has always been late to modern culture’s most popular trends. A sport with conservative roots will always struggle to be at the vanguard of internet sensations. So, perhaps it was no surprise that

      5 min read

    • Article

      Trump, The King Of Sarcasm ... Not

      Apr 29, 2020

      Dear Donald Trump: Man, I have to admit it. You really got me good. When you looked straight at Dr. Deborah Birx last week and started musing how people might be able to cure COVID-19 by exposure to ultraviolet light or injecting household disinfecta

      2 min read

    Reviews for Top Dog

    4/5

    92 ratings9 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      A great read about Winning. Many things that we usually miss when thinking about the reasons and keys to a win are sometimes not what we might think of.
    • 4/5
      Contrary to some modern schools of thought, competitive drive isn't a maladaptive property that needs to be shamed. This book gives great insight into the internal mechanisms that drive humans to compare, contrast, challenge, and strive for greater results. It provides a sound explanation to why winning feels good, losing feels bad, and how we were built to handle such results.
    • 3/5
      A bit short. Interesting research on winning. Ok overall thought
    • 5/5
      Really gets the reader thinking of why some people are top performers and some are not. A lot of scientific and historical references but all are explained for the layman to read. Good book
    • 3/5
      I am not convinced.To oversimplify: the authors of this book divide people into two groups, each with two subgroups. One group likes to compete, the other doesn't. Since the first is mostly men and the second mostly women, they exist in roughly equal proportions in the population. The subgroups of the Competitors are the Honest competitors and the Win-at-any-cost competitors. The subgroups of the Non-competitors are the those who succeed if forced into competition and those who fail.I'm willing to accept their four groups as a tentative hypothesis (though I've given them "classificatory" names rather than the names they use, such as "Warriors" and "Worriers"). They offer some pretty good data that there are such groups. But now I'm going to rename those four groups....Honest Competitors: Competitors who build things upWin-at-all-costs Competitors: JerksSuccessful Non-competitors: CooperatorsUnsuccessful Non-competitors: Failures.Based on what the authors say (and here I don't consider their data as good), the Honest Competitors add the most to society. The Cooperators are next. The Failures contribute nothing but don't impose much cost on society. And the Jerks give us wars, financial crises, racial discrimination, sexual prejudice, crime, sexual abuse, and so forth.So: Suppose we can push people to become either Competitors or Non-competitors, but can't determine in advance which subgroup they will belong to. Which is what it sounds like to me. Which is better, to produce Competitors or Non-competitors? If you produce all Competitors, you'll have Honest Competitors building things up and Jerks tearing things down. If you produce all Non-competitors, you'll have Cooperators building things up (if not as effectively as if you had a society of Honest Competitors) and you'd have Failures, well, failing -- but not doing any harm.The authors assert that the payoff for producing maximum Competitors is higher than that for producing maximum Non-competitors. This is where the problem comes in. Have they proved this? I'm definitely a Non-competitor, and it didn't seem so to me; when I apply utility theory, it sure looks like Non-competitors win. I suspect that a Competitor would say that they did prove it. The "winner" is in the mind of the beholder.So who is right? Well, here's an interesting thought: If either Competitors or Non-competitors had a fundamental advantage, evolution would favor it and the other sort would die out. We still have Competitors and Non-competitors. Which argues that Competitors aren't overwhelming the opposition nearly as much as this book suggests....

      4 people found this helpful

    • 4/5
      Hmm. A lot of different research areas and claims about women’s reactions versus men’s reactions that usually lose the appropriate overlapping bell curve limitations. They identify people as Warriors (perform well in the face of threat; good in a pinch but can overlook things/not plan longer term) and Worriers (can do really badly faced with an unfamiliar threat, but good at planning, and facing a familiar challenge can outperform Warriors because they practice). Again, it felt like some discussion of spectra was missing; I’m pretty damn competitive and I didn’t see myself in either of those descriptions. Fact I didn’t know: if you’re on a team, increased testosterone increases cooperation with teammates, not competitiveness with them—testosterone seems to increase motivation to do whatever’s socially rewarded in a situation, not “aggression.” I was also left unconvinced by the claim that sports provide a model for democracy, because the rules are in the open and thus people see what “fair play” is and also feel outrage when the rules are violated, which is why the Greeks had the Olympics and democracy. While I accept that corruption in one area of society may influence others, I find it hard to tell a causal narrative.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      Interesting case studies cited and some surprises about the effects of competition on people. Gets bogged down in a few spots, but still worth the read.
    • 3/5
      This is probably my own fault for reading a book about a subject that I'm not interested in, but I've liked previous articles by these authors and decided to give it a shot. My conclusion is that I'm still not interested.The book is about competitiveness, and how it can positively impact performance across a number of fields. The deal with this author is that he's one of those pop science writers who reads the research, and then gives you the headlines in an easy to digest way. This is a fine approach, but it wasn't enough to make me care about this topic.One annoying thing, though, is that in summarizing the research, he omits a lot of steps. Again, this is a good policy, otherwise it would be like reading a stack of abstracts, and who wants to do that? Nobody. I know of what I speak, because I used to have to do that for work. I know it sounds like what could be better, getting paid to read about interesting research -- but in reality, there was a time crunch and it's dense stuff to have to read and report out on. ANYWAY, so what will happen is that he'll describe a research study, and then by the end, the details or numbers don't exactly match up. The point of the findings is still there, but it bothered me that the authors/editors didn't try to make this smoother. The shtick is that the research reveals things about competition that are counter-intuitive to what we might think ... but I don't know, man. I think that assumes a lot about what I think. Some of the big zingers didn't seem that unusual.In case you're wondering, major points include:- brain chemistry determines a lot about an individual's response to the stress of competitive situations- individuals can learn to better manage competitive situations- I think that might be all the take-aways. I thought this would be a longer list.
    • 4/5
      Fascinating look at competition, how nature and nurture combined make us competitive or not. Individuals vary widely in how they respond to competition was a central point in the book. The science and psychology behind this was very interesting.