On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:35:32 +0200, andrel wrote:

> 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. ;)

Just because one doesn't compete doesn't mean it's not in your nature.  
As intelligent animals, humans can suppress that natural instinct.  That 
doesn't mean the instinct isn't there, just that the intelligent part of 
the brain in question has decided to try something else.

> 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.

That's certainly true; I've been in that particular competition for 
nearly 5 months now. :(

> 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.

Humans are omnivores by nature - but social structures and personal 
choice both can influence whether or not that natural instinct is 
suppressed or not.  That doesn't mean the instinct isn't there.

> 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.

I don't cite it as "common knowledge", but based on the evidence.  Again, 
suppression of a natural instinct doesn't mean the instinct isn't there.

> 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.

Sure, humans are social animals.  Social animals still have instincts, 
even if social convention suppresses those instincts.

Jim

Post a reply to this message