[techjuice]

You destroy this feeling by striving to become the best which is the only way to become the best. You put in the time and effort to excel way beyond your peers, you teach your peers the advanced knowledge you have gained so they can grow and help you grow along the way. You become their leader and model to work with to make it to the top.

You also have to think outside of the box, don't follow the status quo, enhance it, ask questions and challenge the norm of how things are done. That is the only way to really evolve and transcend to the top.

If Elon Musk went with the sky is the limit mythology there would be no SpaceX. If Steve Jobs gave up after he was fired from Apple there would be no Pixar or Apple today.

Where did you get these artificial limits of never breaking this "average bubble" or will still not be the best type ideas. Thinking that way will not help you rise to your full potential and only slow you down on your way up. The greater something is, the harder it will be to obtain. This is the great thing about being at the top, that it will be very hard for others to race you there as your skills evolve way above the norm.

[dalke]

That sounds like it's said by someone who does not understand the feeling.

There are over 7 billion people. By definition they cannot all "excel way beyond [their] peers".

There's a certain philosophical impossibility to your advice that it's best for everyone to think outside the box and not follow the status quo. If everyone is trying to think outside the box, then that becomes the status quo.

But to start with, why should someone's goal be to "make it to the top"? What's wrong with living a good life, be nice to other people", helping make the town a nicer place to live, or any other equally noble, and more achievable goals? People need vets, and plumbers, and doctors, and yes, even programmers, without always needing the best in the world.

The flip side for all the people who try to be the next <fill in the blank>, and fail, and ruin their lives by doing so. The divorces and suicides and alcoholism and severe depression of the tried-to-reach-the-top-but-failed aren't as well known as the success stories. Or are simply brushed aside for "not trying hard enough."

Picking winners after the fact is tricky. If Jobs gave up, we might have had BePods and BeWatches, or the latest line of AmigaPros laptops. Also, I think you mean Pixar, not DreamWorks.

[techjuice]

You make some great points, I have also corrected Dreamworks to Pixar. Yes, there are over 7 billion people but everyone does not get the feeling of being average which is fine. I used to have this feeling but destroyed it a long time ago by challenging myself and working with others to get a more well rounded perspective on things. When I got this feeling it was due to not being challenged enough in life, or going to work and doing the same thing over and over again. Nothing is more boring than stalling in terms of learning new things everyday and when you think of where will I be in 10 years and you see yourself doing exactly what your doing now with no new goals or achievements being met it normally changes you pretty quick. If you like to see what can happen if you really put some effort into trying new things and not giving up when it appears to get too hard, the results are normally breath taking. These can be things like buying your first car with cash, creating a new product at work, helping a child learn something new, completing a community project, and many more things.

If you are competitive then striving to become the best you can be comes naturally. Helping others on your way to the top also comes naturally as to make it there you have to have the help of others since it cannot be done alone. The good life is relative to ones goals in life, thinking outside of the box goes against the status quo as it is a different way of doing something that has not been done.

Normally on your way to continuous self-improvement and helping build up others around you become a leader in your field, company, group, etc. without even thinking about it. No need to try to be the next so and so, it is better to be yourself and enhance your potential at a pace that keeps you challenged and on your toes. The world is better off with unique leaders, versus people not being their genuine self when trying to lead change and improve things for people around them.

[dalke]

I thought about what you wrote but still have difficulties in making the same connections.

You write "you become a leader in your field, company, group, etc." but that's not really thinking outside of the box, is it? There are those who create entirely new fields, without being a leader. Some of them aren't even known for their work until after death, so can be called 'leader' only in a way synonymous with 'pathfinder', and not at the top in some sort of hierarchical sense.

It also sounds like you define your life around your occupation. What happens if someone wants to be the best parent they can be? Or the best neighbor? What does it even mean to be the "top" in that field?

You write "due to not being challenged enough in life" and I look in disbelief - change jobs. Become a surgeon, or concert violist, or bush pilot, or any of thousands of challenging jobs that have nothing to do with what you do now. Why stick with the same field to find challenges? There's more than only vertical growth. Or learn new hobbies. There are many so-called 'skilled junkies' in the world, and I've not heard of anyone who has mastered everything. You mentioned 'well-rounded', so I assume that's what you are talking about as well, but skills acquisition doesn't need to be part of a competitive world-view. It can be for enjoyment only.

I even find odd your concept of worrying about giving up when it appears to get too hard. If the goal is breath-taking-ness then choose routes to maximize that. There's no need to manufacture and reach a specific unwavering goal for the side-effect of getting that breath taking feeling.

The classical models of conflict are "man against man", "man against nature", and "man against self." The competitiveness you talk about I think only refers to the first of these. I long ago decided to avoid those, and focus more on the latter two, so that I'm doing the things based on my own scale, and not always ranking myself against others.

As an example, in my 30s I started doing a lot of partner dances. I deliberately did not advance past a certain level. I found as I got better I was having less fun dancing with people locally. If I got much better still, I would only be able to enjoy dancing by going to regional dance events, and what I wanted from dancing was to be social with local people.

I don't think I was trying to be the top local dancer. I don't think I was trying to be the best of friends with people. I didn't organize dance events, etc. I was enjoying myself, enjoying being part of the scene, and learning new skills in the process. I don't see how that sort of continuous self-improvement is strongly connected to being a leader of any sort.

[edferda]

The problem is that the things you mentioned(car with cash, helping kids, community projects, etc) are average. And there is nothing wrong with it, I know. It is not about trying the best you can be, in fact most people self-improve themselves and they indeed live a fulfilling life, yet they are still average. I am not saying I can't become the next Ive or Gates(We all have dreams and aspirations. Just because something is highly unlikely it doesn't mean it can't happen), I am saying that realistically speaking I probably won't. And it is totally OK, yet I seem to have an issue with it.