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

>> 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.

> 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. :)

>> It isn't a question of liking it.  "Nature" doesn't mean "we do this
>> only because we like it".
> 
> Nature in general has a way to ensure that what is needed for the
> survival of an individual animal will be enjoyed by that animal. E.g.
> hunting, running, swimming, ruminating and sex.

True.

>>> Then ask yourself the question, are all humans competitive by nature?
>>
>> I come to the same conclusion - they are.  That some choose to suppress
>> the natural instinct doesn't mean they aren't competitive by nature.
>> Again, humans have the ability to suppress instincts.  Some forgo
>> reproduction as well - does that mean humans aren't driven by the
>> instinct to reproduce?
> 
> 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.  Professional 
athletes.  People who play chess competitively.

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

> 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.

> 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. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message