My Happiness Is Your Misery- Why That Idea Is Wrong. An Argument Against A Zero Sum Mindset

I discuss the importance of collaboration and how it can lead to better outcomes for everyone. I draw on my personal experiences and research to support this argument.

Oddly enough the inspiration for this blog post was listening to the song Paint the Town Red by Doja Cat, not my usual music taste but the song is catchy. Upon listening to the lyrics more closely one line stood out to me “Your happiness is my misery’’ immediately that idea seemed very wrong to me. I think this idea is partly inculcated through our individualistic American society in which we are all essentially on our own. If we are only optimizing for our own personal happiness, fulfillment and success then it is easy to see how people think that another person’s success may impact their chances of success e.g., if there is only one spot for a job, someone else being offered a position means that you won’t get the job. However, in my experience most things in life aren’t truly zero sum i.e., a gain for one person or group must inevitably mean a loss for another.

Maybe this is where my first generation Nigerian American upbringing comes in. Growing up this way inevitability instilled in me a more collectivist mindset. As the great African proverb goes “If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far go together. In my view, most things in life aren’t truly a fixed pie. Success for one person can beget success for another. I think that in most situations, “a rising tide lifts all boats' ' or maybe most accurately, a rising tide can lift all boats. This idea squares with my own personal experience and many of the experiences of my mentors that I look up to the most. Also, from a biological point of view, I think this mindset makes more sense. We as social animals (typically) do and feel our best when we are with our tribe. A group of individuals that we feel connected to.

I am about to take a little bit of a biological tangent. Warning, this is a bit of personal conjecture but I think it is pretty grounded in neuroscience. Collaboration ultimately leads to better outcomes. As social animals, collaborations put us in more of a parasympathetic state, meaning the rest and digest part of one’s nervous system. When we are in this state of the nervous system, we are able to think more creatively. However, when we are in a competitive mindset, we are shifted into the sympathetic branch of the nervous system, not meaning sympathy, quite the opposite actually. The sympathetic part of the nervous system is activated when we are stressed potentially due to a perceived feeling of scarcity. When we get into this state our minds become more narrow and are less able to think creatively. This hypothesized mechanism aligns with my personal experience of collaboration vs competition.

I can speak to how this approach plays out in science because that is the realm that I know most about but I think this principle can apply in a variety of domains. In science assembling a team of driven people each with their own strengths and weaknesses leads to better products. Full stop. An integrated scientific research lab/team can collectively benefit from each person’s strengths while working in tandem to mitigate each individual's weakness. The cool thing about this is the effect is not purely additive e.g., if we say that each person’s strengths each equals one and there are two people on the project with an additive approach you may think the sum is two. However, the resulting interaction between people is actually more synergistic. In this scenario the end product would be something more like four. Apologies if this example is overly nerdy, haha. But I think making it more concrete helps illustrate the point.

Also, throwing yourself out there to collaborate with great people (that is people that know things that you don’t) is one of the positive asymmetrical opportunities that one should take advantage of in life. Nasim Talib, author of Skin in the Game, spoke of asymmetrical situations in which the potential payoff is way greater than the potential downside. For one, at the end of the day, no matter how big you think someone is, we are all human and breathe the same air. The worst that could happen is they write you a nasty email back (in which case, would you want to work with someone like that?). More than likely one of three things will happen. (1) They will miss/ignore your message (2) They will politely decline your request, or (3) they will agree to work with you. An example of this in my life is when I was preparing rapid abstract submissions for the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) Research Conference. Through emailing people that I thought were doing amazing work, I ended up getting to collaborate with the previous president of SBM on a few of my projects. Consequently, all my projects were greatly improved and the worst they could have said was no . Additionally, if the collaboration goes well then that opens the door for future collaboration. Both of those potential consequences = better science which in my case (over time) means improved health for all.

So, in sum, let's embrace collaboration because it is better for everyone. Literally.

-With love, Michael C. Onu :]