On 27-9-2011 0:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:40:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 25-9-2011 18:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:54:13 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You are assuming all competition is harmful, but it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> I know, but there is a general idea that all competition is
>>>> beneficial. That is the implicit assumption under (neo)liberalism.
>>>> Sometimes you have to exaggerate to get a message across.
>>>
>>> Depends on the audience.  Some audiences look at such exaggeration and
>>> say "this person has gone off the rails" and stop listening completely.
>>
>> Sure, but not in this newsgroup.
>
> You can say that for 100% certain?

No, by definition. If they don't respond there is no way to figure out 
why not.

> I've looked at some posts that had
> that kind of exaggeration myself and just shook my head and moved on....

Well, I wasn't the one starting with great generalizations in this 
thread. ;) Anyone still here had already past that point.

I also chose something that would resonate at least a bit even in those 
that thought they would disagree totally. At least that is what I tried.

>>> No, and I never made that claim.  I've explicitly said that there is
>>> beneficial competition and harmful competition.
>>
>> Granted, but in general 'X is part of human nature' means either it is
>> as it should be (or the double inverse as in 'homosexuality is against
>> nature') or it means 'resistance is futile'. So if you make a sweeping
>> statement like 'competitiveness is part of human nature' I feel free to
>> react as if you are not aware of the counter arguments. Simply because
>> people hear the one-liners and not the subtleties later. ;)
>
> When I talk about something being human nature, I'm not saying it's an
> irresistible force.  Quite the opposite, in fact - one of the things
> about being human is (ostensibly) being able to say "yes, this is in our
> nature, but that doesn't mean I *have* to behave this way - I have a
> choice.

Still confused as to when you would call something 'part of human nature'.

>> Note also that I did not think that you got of the rails and I did not
>> stop listening completely.
>
> Then we've both done a good thing.  I'm finding the discussion
> interesting, and I hope you are as well. :)

>> Ok, we have established that with the exception of (mainly) adolescent
>> males nobody likes to compete, and even those only in specific areas. In
>> fact we are avoiding it as best as we can*. And most of us are not even
>> good at it.
>> Can you explain why you still think it is part of human nature?
>
> Well, no, we haven't established that nobody likes to compete.  All one
> has to do is look at the CxO level of any US-based company to see that
> there are people who absolutely *love* to compete.

Compete in what sense?

 > Professional athletes.  People who play chess competitively.

Just as long as it is within their field. Let them write a grant 
application to get money to pay their training program and living for 
half a year with only 15% granted and see if they still like to compete.

> Right now, we're discussing competing ideas - in a way, this discussion
> is a form of competition. ;)

And I have a bit of a cold so I am competing with a lot of small things 
too. Sorry, what was the point?

>> I think the alternative explanation that we are not competitive by
>> nature but that sometimes we are forced to suppress that instinct is a
>> much better one.
>
> Perhaps it's more cultural than I initially thought. :)  I read an
> interesting article today at www.markgoulston.com about the nature of
> competition in the US and how it differs from other parts of the world.
> I'd be interested in what you think of that article.

I vaguely remember someone in the beginning of this discussion 
mentioning that competitiveness is cultural. It was a long time ago, so 
I might be misremembering.

What I find interesting is that an American realizes that cultural 
differences exist. They often seem to have trouble understanding that. 
Must be cultural.

>> Anyway, let's agree to disagree on this point.
>>
>> *) one of the insights that repeatedly comes back in Pratchett is that
>> in the end what a human wants is that tomorrow will be almost the same
>> as today.
>
> I think there are some like that.  I know in my current situation, I'd
> prefer tomorrow not be the same as today - I'd rather be employed. ;)

But if you have a family you would prefer them to be there tomorrow too. 
If you had enough money to buy food, you'd prefer that to be the case 
tomorrow too. Still having two arms would be a bonus. Being employed or 
not is just a mere detail. ;)


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

Post a reply to this message