Winning, then collapsing: the science behind a universal paradox – Sadio Tounkara

Dopamine, fractured identity, post-objective emptiness. A scientific dive into the mechanisms that make winners the biggest victims of their own triumph.

 Victory is often more dangerous than defeat

There is a truth that no one teaches us, not in schools, not in self-help books, not in graduation speeches. A truth that we always discover too late, after the fall, never before.

Not because success is bad. But because we are not wired to handle what happens next.

I. The brain of the hunter, not the king

To understand the post-victory crisis, we must begin with a lesson in fundamental neurochemistry. Neuroscientist Wolfram Schultz demonstrated, through decades of research into the dopamine system, that the human brain is not designed to savor reward; it is designed to anticipate reward. Dopamine, this molecule that we associate with pleasure, is in reality the molecule of the quest. It soars during the chase. It drops, sometimes suddenly, when it is obtained.

This phenomenon, which researchers call reward prediction error, explains something fundamental: your brain promises you that victory will be extraordinary. And when you reach it, it registers biological disillusionment. Not because you failed. Because you succeeded.

Kent Berridge, neuroscientist at the University of Michigan, went further by distinguishing two often confused brain systems: the wanting system and the liking system. These two systems are anatomically separate. The first is vast, powerful, almost unlimited. The second is small, fragile, easily saturated. What you want with passion, you often love only moderately once you get it.

The opponent who dreams of power for twenty years. The entrepreneur who fantasizes about his financing. The artist who imagines his first album cover. They have fed their system wanting for years a war machine in its purest form. But on the big day, it’s the infinitely more limited liking system that takes over. And it doesn't live up to expectations.

II. Fractured Identity: When You Win by Losing Yourself

There is a second, even deeper mechanism. It touches on identity. Psychologist Erik Erikson theorized that human identity is built around struggle, not possession. We define ourselves by our battles, our adversities, our causes. The political opponent and his fight against the regime.

The entrepreneur in search of funds and his resistance to refusals. The artist in search of recognition and his thirst to be heard.

When the objective is achieved, something dizzying happens: the character who had meaning disappears. Victory is, in a way, a form of identity death.

Studies in clinical psychology have shown that athletes who end their careers after a title, revolutionaries who rise to power, and even patients recovered from a long illness, often go through an intense depressive phase. Not out of ingratitude. But because their old identity built around struggle no longer makes sense, and the new identity has not yet been built. This is called post-objective vacuum. A void. And in this void, the most destructive decisions are made.

III. Vigilance collapsing

There is a third process, more discreet but devastating: relaxation of vigilance. Work in evolutionary psychology shows that the human brain maintains a high level of alert as long as a threat or objective requires attention. When the threat disappears or the objective is achieved, this alert system relaxes. Naturally. Biologically. It is a response adapted to survival in an ancestral environment: after hunting, you have to rest.

But in the modern world, victory is never the end of the hunt. It is the beginning of a new territory. And in this new territory, relaxation of vigilance is paid for in cash.

The entrepreneur who obtains his financing releases his creativity, his urgency, his sense of detail. He begins to pay for offices, recruit too quickly, lose contact with his market. The politician who gains power loses the discipline of the candidate. The artist who releases his first album stops practicing with the same intensity, convinced that the work has been done.

This is what Daniel Kahneman calls the shift from System 2 to System 1: the analytical, slow and rigorous mode of thinking gives way to the automatic, fast and lazy mode. Vigilance is suspended. And the errors accumulate.

IV. The Illusion of Arrival or the mirage of the destination

Harvard psychologist Tal Ben-Shahar called this phenomenon Arrival Fallacy. We believe, deeply, that achieving a goal will fundamentally transform our inner state.

But research in hedonic psychology, notably Sonja Lyubomirsky's work on hedonic adaptation, shows that human beings return to their baseline level of happiness with disconcerting speed, regardless of victory. A promotion. A fortune. A title. Six to twelve weeks are enough, on average, for the level of satisfaction to return to its starting point.

This is not ingratitude. It's biology.

The problem is that winning has often been the reason for living. The fuel. The organization of an entire existence. And when it arrives, there is no new fuel ready. No new story. No new territory mentally mapped.

 V. The Competence Trap

Finally, there is a fifth mechanism, described in the managerial literature under the name of competency trap. The skills that allow you to achieve a goal are rarely those that allow you to manage it.

Winning a market requires agility, daring and risk tolerance. Managing market share requires rigor, diplomacy and mastery of systems. They are two different professions. Two different psychologies. Two distinct skill sets.

Laurence Peter formalized this in the Peter Principle: in any hierarchy, individuals tend to rise to their level of incompetence. Not out of malice. But because the skills rewarded are those of the previous stage, not the next one.

The opponent who excels in resistance strategy will become head of state and will have to manage budgets, diplomatic alliances and institutions. The successful entrepreneur in pitching will have to learn operational management, management, regulatory compliance. The artist who mastered creation will suddenly have to navigate the industry, royalties, public image. The terrain is changing. The player remains the same until he realizes it.

VI. Those Who Survive Their Victory: What the Science Says

We must not conclude that victory condemns. Some go through this passage with grace. And research tells us why.

Studies on post-traumatic growth by Richard Tedeschi and Lawrence Calhoun, applied here to post-victory growth, show that individuals who overcome the post-victory crisis share three characteristics:

·      An identity based on deep values, and not on temporary objectives. Their sense of self does not depend on the outcome. The fight was a chapter, not the whole story.

·      They have anticipated the void not avoiding it, but deliberately filling it. They already had a next goal formed before reaching the first.

·      They understood that victory is a apprenticeship contract, not a diploma of universal competence. They change their mode: from conquest to management, consciously, humbly.

Conclusion: Building men and women for the future

We prepare people to win. We never prepare them to be victorious. Our entire culture, our motivational speeches, our training, our heroic stories stop at the finish line. As if crossing that line was the end point. As if glory were a stable state.

But glory is unstable by nature. It requires permanent reconstruction. A new identity after each victory. A new fuel after each spent fuel. A new skill after each change of terrain.

The biggest collapses in history are no mysteries. These are the predictable consequences of a brain congenitally better at hunting than ruling, in a world that demands both.

The real question is not: How to win? The real question is: Who will I become the day after victory and have I prepared for that?

Because it is not enough to take the mountain. You still have to know how to live there.

 Scientific references:

·      Wolfram Schultz: Reward prediction error (dopamine & motivation), Journal of Neurophysiology, 1997

·      Kent Berridge:  Wanting vs. liking systems, University of Michigan, 2009

·      Erik Erikson: Dentity and the Life Cycle, Childhood and Society, 1950

·      Tal Ben-Shahar: Arrival Fallacy, Harvard Positive Psychology, 2007

·      Sonja Lyubomirsky: Hedonic adaptation, The How of Happiness, 2008

·      Daniel Kahneman: System 1 / System 2, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011

·      Laurence Peter:  The Peter Principle, 1969

·      Richard Tedeschi & Lawrence Calhoun, Post-traumatic growth, Psychological Inquiry, 1995

This content is a reflection of Sadjo TOUNKARA, Actor of educational innovation in Guinea