Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
Fierce fights over small stakes
Henry Kissinger's line about his fellow faculty at Harvard was that the battles were so ferocious because the stakes were so small. That sounds like insanity, yet it follows from the logic of the situation: when the objective differences are small, people have to compete ferociously to maintain some difference, and that difference is often more imaginary than real.
Competition does make people better at whatever they are competing on. Comparing yourself with the people around you shows you how to beat the person next to you and do somewhat better at what they are doing, and you improve at it. The price is that people stop asking bigger questions about what is truly important and truly valuable.
Why are academic fights so bitter?
A line often called Sayre's law, named for Columbia political scientist Wallace Sayre, holds that academic politics are most vicious because the stakes are so small. The saying has been repeated for decades and attached to several speakers. Henry Kissinger's version about Harvard faculty is among the best known. Universities keep tenure and prestige scarce, so small differences in standing carry much of the weight.
Why do near-identical rivals dislike each other most?
Sigmund Freud called it the narcissism of small differences, writing about it around 1917. He observed that neighboring communities with much in common often show the strongest hostility toward one another. The closer two groups are, the more a small difference has to do to keep them apart.
How does comparing with peers improve performance?
Psychologist Norman Triplett reported in 1898 that cyclists rode faster when racing against others than when riding alone against the clock. Leon Festinger later laid out social comparison theory in 1954, proposing that people judge their abilities by looking at others. Having someone close by to measure against tends to raise effort.
More from YC Root Access
