[PartiallyTyped]

With the prevalence of player-vs-player (PvP) games with global leaderboards I'd argue that it could be the opposite, i.e. kids have a better grasp of where they stack on the larger scheme of things.

I too played sports competitively as a child and that eventually fueled interest in PvP games. It was about proving one's self.

In contrast, when one is limited to just academia/school, they have a poor understanding of where they stack up as they are essentially in a microcosm of reality. I take it that OP is in advanced studies and did well in their prior years. With high probability they did too well in school for their own good and didn't have to learn how to be consistent and do the work.

Again speaking from experience on the latter.

[matwood]

PvP games are a good point, though I do think there is something different than IRL sports. Even PvP game competitions in person I think have a different level of lesson than online.

Interesting thought about global leaderboards. I wonder if they are so big, that it's easy to dismiss though. I feel like there is an optimal size in between, sort of like what's happened in sports in the past. As a kid got better, they would get moved to higher levels.

[PartiallyTyped]

I can tell you from experience that it is very, very embarrassing to be low ranked when your friends are not ranked.

A friend of mine was top 100 in a region with 10 million players, and I could barely get to top 10% without help. Granted my friend is absolutely brilliant and has played competitively in all the games he played (e.g. WoW, League of legends, hearthstone, and so on). I wish he could find something in real life that gave him the same rush as "being one of the best".