Yes, but then you know it's a game, so there's no self-deception that you're actually doing something meaningful. This realization thus gives the whole sportsmanship concept.

I think many people in the Bay Area also see careers as a game.

> Yes, but then you know it's a game, so there's no self-deception that you're actually doing something meaningful.

I have reasons to believe that many very successful athletes do have this self-deception.

Can be argued that there is intuitive satisfaction/pleasure/utility that spectators gain from watching sports competitions. The payoff is a lot more obvious/instant. Whereas with a lot of tech these days, what needle are we really moving? Are people truly happier scrolling for two hours, compared with watching an edge-of-seat soccer game?

The idea appears to be to simulate the edge-of-seat sensation and, ideally, to charge for the privilege of the experience.

Some probably do-- McEnroe for example could go rather crazy, but for example, Stefan Edberg and some other people were able to behave very reasonably despite playing for large prizes and despite having presumably participated in tournaments from an early age, knowing that they if they lose a match have to go home and don't get to play any more.

I don’t get the sense that the participants in a game actually know it’s a meaningless game. We have several domains beyond professional sports in which people have utterly persuaded themselves of their success simply due to external factors, like fans of celebrities and pop musicians who are essentially living in a delusional feedback loop fed by their fanatics. In tech and business in general it is more often how people have convinced themselves of their success based on “successful exists” or revenue growth in an economy that is solely a function of money printing and deficit spending/debt, not some objective measure of improvement. It’s the same kind of thing that on a geopolitical stage has resulted in America with its $1T+ military budget being effectively checkmated by hypersonic missiles, etc.; the delusion that $ = success and superiority and dominance, when all it really did was blind us in all the ways possible.

But if you are truly smart, just telling people the truth, effectively explaining that their disfigured baby is ugly is so jarring to their coping mechanisms that they are browbeat to maintain the fiction of the beauty of the baby. This is also where power and abuse comes in. The ones who will destroy even the smartest people, often specifically because their intelligence threatens those on power and who are abusing humanity. Truly smart people simply have a hard time with lying to themselves though. That’s why they’re less happy in a world of lies, manipulation, and delusion. Truely smart people see the world dominated by the worst kind of narcissistic psychopaths, but they cannot actually let on to that fact or all the narcissistic psychopaths immediately turn on them in the most aggressive and intense way. It’s the nature of dealing with narcissistic psychopaths, and it leads to quite a bit of unhappiness if you are not also a narcissistic psychopath but have to live in the world you see for what it is. It’s probably the origin of the phrase “ignorance is bliss”; the cattle on the ranch are the happiest, until the day they are not at all.

> many are fulfilled by it.

At least in my sampling, I'd suggest the most extremely driven people often have some major sense of lack they're chasing.