Are they born with it, or is it Maybelline? When I say the Saints will lose their first playoff-game, how would winners respond? Would they start doubting their abilities? Would they begin questioning whether or not they will win? Would they tell me to jump off a bridge and call me an ignorant fool for thinking they would lose? Would they say there is no chance of them losing? Would they change their routine? Is winning about a mentality, what people call a state of confidence, or do winners simply possess the mentality because they win? To answer these questions, I have conducted several interviews. Because I am unable to garner real interviews, I have created fake interviews.

My first interviewee was Spider-Man. He talked about how web-agility is the secret to success. When the bad-guys are trying to punch him, with no webs, he can use webs. In terms of the psychology of winners, he told me he prefers neurology but then added, "Losing is neither an option nor a possibility.".

My second interview came from the notorious Vincent Price. Aside from many fits of cackling, he didn't have much to add. Death, homicidal instincts and the thirst for blood was, apparently, what motivated him to success. For Vincent Price, as long as people die, it is a victory. This seems like a healthy attitude, since everyone will eventually die.

My last interview was with Christian Slater. I recently saw Christian Slater, in Mormon-land. It was a nice part of Mormon-land, complete with a polygamy porter. Maybe I could have conducted this interview with Christian Slater for real, but now I will conduct it for fake.

Me: "Christian Slater, what separates winners from losers?"
Christian Slater: "Your mom."
Me: "I don't want to know what that means."
Christian Slater: "Whatever, ask your mom."
Me: "We're talking about winners and losers, not moms."
Christian Slater: "Fine, bye."

As you can see, the fake interview with Christian Slater did not yield much information. Maybe we could analyze the worst losers in history? Many people said Hitler's early military victories happened because he didn't know what he was doing. I suppose, if you don't know what you're doing, your opponents won't either. The problem though, with gross ineptitude, is that the adept, given time, will figure things out. What do all of you think? What, when all else is even, is the difference between winning and losing?