On 23-9-2011 0:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:45:30 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 22-9-2011 6:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:42:13 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> Defending a system where your scores are compared to your fellow
>>>> students (including your friends) and only a certain percentage pass,
>>>> by referring to this sort of abstract competition is plain silly.
>>>
>>> I wasn't defending the system, I was pointing out that competitiveness
>>> is a part of human nature, and provided one example.
>>
>> And I was just pointing out that it is a really bad example. Sort of
>> like comparing apples and plants. Or more to the point, telling somebody
>> that expresses surprise at the existence of apples that there is indeed
>> a whole kingdom of plants. True, but not precisely to the points.
>
> I don't think it was a bad example - unless "competition" means a lot of
> different things.
>
> Humans are competitive by nature, and I think we're in agreement on that.

It is mainly males that are competitive and even so I haven't directly 
competed with another human for the last 30 years. Not even for a job or 
a mate.
I try to do new things and in a better way, so in a sense I am in 
competition with myself, but that is not what you mean, I guess.
So to the best of my knowledge I am not competitive at all. Which, given 
that I only need one counterexample, implies that I think we don't agree. ;)

Perhaps this is true for more people and competition is something mainly 
for adolescent males. For those that need to compete for jobs, I think 
in general they would prefer not to, but are forced by others to compete.

The reason I found your example misleading is that you take a general 
term and as an example take something that is very specific for a 
special social and age group and for a very specific meaning of the 
term. To me it is like eating the pet chicken of your brother, shrugging 
your shoulders and saying that men are omnivores by nature.

The other thing that made me react is that you seem to quote common 
knowledge. This is one of the occasions that I like to stress that if 
something is common knowledge it does not mean it is true. The reason 
this seems common knowledge is that it is reiterated by those that have 
'won' even if the 'competition' was actually not competing or even aware 
that a contest was taking place. I mean the occasions when suddenly 
someone is in power in a business or political party or organization 
that is only interested in himself and only uses that
business/party/organization to improve his own position and wealth. 
These are the people most likely to stress that this is perfectly normal 
because 'humans are competitive by nature'. Quod non. Humans are social 
animals.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message