You think you're working hard, but actually you're competing with others

First, let me state a conclusion: any act of doing is essentially competing with others. What does that mean? It means you believe you're creating value for society alone, making an incremental cake, without hindering anyone, but in reality, you're still competing with others. The final share you get is definitely the portion that was originally meant for others.

I've previously mentioned a principle: even if you're inventing or creating, expanding the cake for society rather than stealing existing shares, you're still competing. For example, after the invention of the textile machine, using the textile machine is just creating value for society, but your increased efficiency will cause the per-unit value for those not using your machine to decrease. Because there's more stuff, prices naturally fall, and if their efficiency hasn't improved, the value of their output decreases.

Another example: everyone's life has improved compared to the past, but why are many people still not satisfied with just having a roof over their head, air conditioning, and a mobile phone? Because everyone has improved, the standard of "minimum living conditions" has naturally risen. Therefore, the increase in absolute living value doesn't prevent dissatisfaction when relative value weakens—you're creating great value for society, and according to fairness principles, you also receive the majority of the cake. Even if others benefit because of you, their proportion of the cake decreases, and with the standard of minimum living conditions rising, they will also feel that "you've taken everything."

All the things in this world that can generate returns are influenced by supply and demand—if everyone needs a certain thing, and only you are doing it, then no matter how poorly you do, you are still a master and can get an endless share of the cake. But the problem is, people are alive. When they discover they can make money here, many will come to compete. If you still create the original value for society without changing, you'll find you can't get a share anymore because society no longer needs you to create value. Those who do it better or compete harder will replace you.

Therefore, you think you're doing work, and you think "the more work you do, the more contribution you make to society, the more you should get in return"—this is a fixed idea. If you don't get it, society's distribution is at fault—completely wrong. How much you get depends on how many people need you to do these things and how many others are competing with you. Competition is passive—you don't have to compete, but you do anyway. Essentially, any way to make money is the result of doing better than others. For example, in Michael Jordan's era, if all players practiced basketball several times harder than Michael Jordan, then Michael Jordan wouldn't be anything special, wouldn't earn money, it's that simple—even if he still practices that much every day.

So we find that almost any process follows this pattern: rapid progress at first, high interest, then gradually hitting a wall—no matter what you do, no progress, data doesn't increase, no feedback, and no matter how you try to improve, it doesn't work. Then interest wanes, and you give up—few people can endure until clear feedback appears, and data begins to grow significantly.

Why? Because early progress isn't due to being smarter, but because going from 0 to 60 points is just a daily change—everyone experiences this. But if everyone is at 60 or 70 points and progressing in sync, why can't you see the feedback growth from progress? Because your ranking hasn't changed—feedback only goes to those higher in the supply side ranking. If you and everyone else are progressing together and persisting, then in theory, only the top can get a share. Relying on what? On someone giving up, falling behind, and more people dropping out, with newcomers starting from zero again. At this point, your ranking becomes relatively higher, and since you're also slowly moving forward, the law of large numbers and luck start to play a role. Then suddenly, one day, it’s like "luck" comes, and you get a big result.

What is this called? It’s competition and endurance—it's not that you're smarter, making bigger progress, or luckier, but that more people give up, stop moving forward, and stop competing with you. Then you get the share. It’s not that you become a big expert through relentless effort—most of the time, it’s because you got to the front of the line, gained more opportunities, expanded your vision, received many tasks only you are qualified for, met many people only you can know, and encountered some problems only you can understand. Only then do you gradually become an expert, not because you initially knew more than others. You just can endure a little longer, lead a little more, and the rest is the Matthew effect taking over.

So, do you understand? This is how it works: any social contribution essentially involves pushing others out of the way to see the benefits. If everyone is as hard to push out as you are, then you have to become "even harder to push out" to get your share, rather than believing "if you work diligently, society should give you the rewards you want."

If you're working on something that only requires a high rank and long-term high returns, but short-term no visible results, remember this article today. Many things ultimately depend not on who persists longer, but on who understands the mechanism of the matter more deeply, who knows better how success works.