It's extremely rare to hear something insightful being said on a talk 
show. However, just once, I did witness such a thing.

The following exchange occurred between some random parent, and the head 
teacher of some obscure school:

Teacher: We don't perform competitive activities at our school.
Parent: Don't you believe in /challenging/ children? Don't you believe 
in setting goals that will stretch them?
Teacher: We do believe in presenting children with strong challenges. 
However, we believe it is important for children to learn that their 
success doesn't have to come at the expense of anybody else.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2011 11:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
> It's extremely rare to hear something insightful being said on a talk
> show. However, just once, I did witness such a thing.
>
> The following exchange occurred between some random parent, and the head
> teacher of some obscure school:
>
> Teacher: We don't perform competitive activities at our school.
> Parent: Don't you believe in /challenging/ children? Don't you believe
> in setting goals that will stretch them?
> Teacher: We do believe in presenting children with strong challenges.
> However, we believe it is important for children to learn that their
> success doesn't have to come at the expense of anybody else.

Sorry, I don’t get it. What is insightful about that?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Teacher: We don't perform competitive activities at our school.
>> Parent: Don't you believe in /challenging/ children? Don't you believe
>> in setting goals that will stretch them?
>> Teacher: We do believe in presenting children with strong challenges.
>> However, we believe it is important for children to learn that their
>> success doesn't have to come at the expense of anybody else.
>
> Sorry, I don’t get it. What is insightful about that?

Think about it. In a competition, you win by making somebody else lose.

If you think about it, that's perhaps not a very good life lesson. Do we 
really want children growing up thinking that the way to get ahead in 
life is to put other people down?

Competition isn't about being the best that you can be. It's about being 
better than everybody else in the competition. For some, that might be 
an impossibly difficult task. For others, it might be so ridiculously 
easy that it's no challenge for them. And then there's the people who 
start thinking "well if I can't get better, is there a way I can make 
everybody else get worse?"

This teacher's idea was that each child should have an individual goal 
which is meaningful to them, and which they work towards. One person's 
challenge might be a walk in the park for somebody else, but that's not 
what matters. It matters whether *you* have goals that stretch *you*.

And the other part is, by doing things non-competitively, if you do 
well, it doesn't make anybody else do less well. You don't have to 
"beat" somebody else to achieve your own goals. And that's arguably a 
much more positive way to approach life.

At least, that's what *I* took away from the exchange...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's extremely rare to hear something insightful being said on a talk
> show. However, just once, I did witness such a thing.
>
> The following exchange occurred between some random parent, and the head
> teacher of some obscure school:
>
> Teacher: We don't perform competitive activities at our school.
> Parent: Don't you believe in /challenging/ children? Don't you believe
> in setting goals that will stretch them?
> Teacher: We do believe in presenting children with strong challenges.
> However, we believe it is important for children to learn that their
> success doesn't have to come at the expense of anybody else.

While I was thinking about how to word a reply that was largely in sympathy with
the practice downplaying the role of competition in education specifically and
society generally, it stuck me that I was also thinking about ways that I might
be able to assist in the resurrection of the IRTC, the Internet Ray Tracing
COMPETITION.  Was I about to contradict myself yet again? Well, only sort of.

My real point is that opinions regarding the negative or positive value of
competition often are formed without due consideration being given to the
usually well-acknowledged principle that wisdom is seldom found at the extremes.
A classic example which illustrates this is: “Fire is either bad or good.  If
it’s bad, we should put out every fire in the world. If it’s good, we should set
fire to everything in the world. Now, let’s argue incessantly over which of
these two things we should do.”

It’s easy for me to sympathize with anti-competition sentiments, being one of
those who feels that our society frequently emphasizes and promotes competition
far in excess of the rational balance point that would be determined by asking
serious questions about when, where and in what degree competition would do more
good than harm.  It’s also all too easy to allow this debate to take on the feel
of a “grudge match” in light of the fact that some (NOT all) of those who argue
strenuously in favor of competition do so in an extremely disingenuous fashion,
seeking only to cover their desire to dominate and profit at the expense of
others with a veneer of respectability. “When I starve my workers and their
children so that I can afford my eleventh Ferrari, I’m just following the laws
of nature and promoting the well-being of society generally.  People who don’t
agree to this are just pig-ignorant anarchist burdens on society who are getting
what they deserve.”

So, back to the IRTC. Why not just have an “IRTS” - Internet Ray Tracing
Showcase and dispense with the element of competition? Although this would be
fine by me personally, I have to admit that, in this case, an element of
competition is probably doing some good in motivating participation and
improving the quality of the images.  The trick is not to let a preoccupation
with who wins run amok and take the fun out of the event for everyone. (Sadly, I
think we saw that happen a few times.)

Another sense in which the broad generalization, “Competition bad – Cooperation
good”, doesn’t hold up is that undue emphasis on cooperation can also be used
disingenuously by those whose true goal is simply to control others: “Now look,
everybody but YOU agrees that the Sun goes around the Earth, but you have to
keep insisting the Earth orbits the Sun.  Why can’t you just learn to COOPERATE?
Boys, take Mr. Galileo to the tower and 'explain' the advantages of
cooperating.”  It’s the oldest plan for despotism on the books: Use a few
well-established tricks to control the herd, then stampede the herd to trample
the dissenters.

The idea that we should ALWAYS cooperate and NEVER compete is predicted on the
highly questionable assumption that there is someone who just KNOWS what is best
for everyone and how we should be going about achieving it.

As for the classroom environment, I support the notion of cutting way back on
creating artificial institutionally sponsored forums for separating students
into “winners” and “losers” and encouraging young people to ask serious
questions about the intrinsic value of their efforts and actions instead.  Life
is about more than just being able to say, “I win!”  Win what? For whose
benefit? Let’s not, however, allow a rational desire to put constructive limits
on competition to become an irrational preoccupation with stamping out
competition in all its forms. The Chess Club can go ahead with it’s scheduled
meeting.

Best regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2011 02:51 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:

> As for the classroom environment, I support the notion of cutting way back on
> creating artificial institutionally sponsored forums for separating students
> into “winners” and “losers” and encouraging young people to ask serious
> questions about the intrinsic value of their efforts and actions instead.  Life
> is about more than just being able to say, “I win!”  Win what? For whose
> benefit? Let’s not, however, allow a rational desire to put constructive limits
> on competition to become an irrational preoccupation with stamping out
> competition in all its forms. The Chess Club can go ahead with it’s scheduled
> meeting.

This teacher was clearly of the opinion that *all* competition is 
inherently a bad thing. Much like there are people who insist that 
violence is wrong, and would peacefully let somebody beat them to death 
rather than actually defend themselves.

Myself, I happen to agree with your sentiments on the matter...

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2011 5:54 AM, Invisible wrote:

>
> Think about it. In a competition, you win by making somebody else lose.
>

Of course, the real world is competitive. What you have done, by denying 
the existence of competition is sent someone into society who is 
ill-prepared to deal with that society. Sure, you can have personal 
goals, but somewhere someone is going to lose out where you win. The 
other applicants for a job, the promotion from a pool of workers, 
finding a mate; all competitive.

By not acknowledging that the world is competitive, that person is 
likely to experience extreme disappointment when they don't get the job. 
"But it was my personal goal, why didn't it happen?"

Or, it could swing the other way. "Hey! It was my personal goal to 
become manager. Your goals don't matter, so what is your problem? I 
achieved my goal. I'm sure you will someday, too.

Learning competition means understanding that you will not always come 
out on top. It's about learning to be fair to others. It means giving 
the other side due consideration. I for one welcome competition in our 
schools.

That statement by that teacher is dangerously ill-conceived, rather than 
insightful.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2011 9:21 AM, Invisible wrote:

> This teacher was clearly of the opinion that *all* competition is
> inherently a bad thing. Much like there are people who insist that
> violence is wrong, and would peacefully let somebody beat them to death
> rather than actually defend themselves.
>

I'm forced into a class currently that appears to teach that sort of 
passivity. Sorry, no ... you threaten my life and I will respond in 
defense, even if that means causing a great deal of harm to the threat.

> Myself, I happen to agree with your sentiments on the matter...


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:11:31 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 9/20/2011 5:54 AM, Invisible wrote:
> 
> 
>> Think about it. In a competition, you win by making somebody else lose.
>>
>>
> Of course, the real world is competitive. What you have done, by denying
> the existence of competition is sent someone into society who is
> ill-prepared to deal with that society. Sure, you can have personal
> goals, but somewhere someone is going to lose out where you win. The
> other applicants for a job, the promotion from a pool of workers,
> finding a mate; all competitive.
> 
> By not acknowledging that the world is competitive, that person is
> likely to experience extreme disappointment when they don't get the job.
> "But it was my personal goal, why didn't it happen?"
> 
> Or, it could swing the other way. "Hey! It was my personal goal to
> become manager. Your goals don't matter, so what is your problem? I
> achieved my goal. I'm sure you will someday, too.
> 
> Learning competition means understanding that you will not always come
> out on top. It's about learning to be fair to others. It means giving
> the other side due consideration. I for one welcome competition in our
> schools.
> 
> That statement by that teacher is dangerously ill-conceived, rather than
> insightful.

I agree.

A world where people don't know that sometimes there is a winner and 
sometimes there is a loser means that you get people who can't cope with 
losing.

Of course it's important for students (and people in general) to know 
that they often compete with themselves.

When kids who have never had to face losing hit the real world and, for 
example, don't get a job from their first interview because there was a 
better candidate then them, such a first loss is absolutely *devastating*.

I think that is something that contributes to workplace violence as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2011 3:54, Invisible wrote:
> One person's challenge might be a walk in the park for somebody else

Somehow, I read that literally the first time, and thought of all the 
charities that collect $X for every mile you walk.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 20-9-2011 19:24, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:11:31 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/2011 5:54 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Think about it. In a competition, you win by making somebody else lose.
>>>
>>>
>> Of course, the real world is competitive. What you have done, by denying
>> the existence of competition is sent someone into society who is
>> ill-prepared to deal with that society. Sure, you can have personal
>> goals, but somewhere someone is going to lose out where you win. The
>> other applicants for a job, the promotion from a pool of workers,
>> finding a mate; all competitive.
>>
>> By not acknowledging that the world is competitive, that person is
>> likely to experience extreme disappointment when they don't get the job.
>> "But it was my personal goal, why didn't it happen?"
>>
>> Or, it could swing the other way. "Hey! It was my personal goal to
>> become manager. Your goals don't matter, so what is your problem? I
>> achieved my goal. I'm sure you will someday, too.
>>
>> Learning competition means understanding that you will not always come
>> out on top. It's about learning to be fair to others. It means giving
>> the other side due consideration. I for one welcome competition in our
>> schools.
>>
>> That statement by that teacher is dangerously ill-conceived, rather than
>> insightful.
>
> I agree.
>
> A world where people don't know that sometimes there is a winner and
> sometimes there is a loser means that you get people who can't cope with
> losing.
>
> Of course it's important for students (and people in general) to know
> that they often compete with themselves.
>
> When kids who have never had to face losing hit the real world and, for
> example, don't get a job from their first interview because there was a
> better candidate then them, such a first loss is absolutely *devastating*.
>
> I think that is something that contributes to workplace violence as well.

Just a quick note: competitiveness is partly cultural. In some countries 
students compete with every other student and the percentage of students 
that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you meet a certain 
level.
In a mixed group, like an international organization, not being aware of 
that difference might lead to friction and even a complete shutdown of 
all functionality. What happens is that a very competitive person gets 
the top position by playing it hard. Everybody knows he got it that way 
and not by being the right person for the job. Then nobody wants to work 
with him (seldom a her) and nothing gets done.

Quite a lot of people that live in competitive countries are not aware 
that the higher you get in an international organization the less you 
can force someone lower in rank to do what you want. In a monoculture it 
works different.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:27:48 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Just a quick note: competitiveness is partly cultural. In some countries
> students compete with every other student and the percentage of students
> that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you meet a certain
> level.

I think competitiveness is part of human nature.  Competition to find the 
'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to continue.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Think about it. In a competition, you win by making somebody else lose.
>
> Of course, the real world is competitive. What you have done, by denying
> the existence of competition is sent someone into society who is
> ill-prepared to deal with that society.

I think anybody who takes it to the extreme of /denying/ that life is 
competitive sometimes is, at best, misguided.

In my humble opinion, the society I see around me is too competitive. 
There's too much emphasis on beating somebody else as a way to get what 
you want. I think it's very valuable to teach children (and anybody else 
who'll listen) that your victory doesn't always have to come at the cost 
of somebody else's defeat. Indeed, sometimes your gain can be 
*everybody's* gain.

True, sometimes it can't, and you need to understand that. Sometimes 
there can be only one winner. But it doesn't always have to be that way.

> Learning competition means understanding that you will not always come
> out on top. It's about learning to be fair to others. It means giving
> the other side due consideration. I for one welcome competition in our
> schools.

No, that's "cooperation". "Competition" is where you disregard everybody 
else and beat them out of the way by any means possible so that you get 
what you want.

> That statement by that teacher is dangerously ill-conceived, rather than
> insightful.

The sentiment can be taken to unhealthy extremes. Considering only the 
statement I witnessed, it's not really possible to say whether they took 
it that far or not.

Post a reply to this message

> Just a quick note: competitiveness is partly cultural.

I hear China and Japan have more cooperative cultures, whereas America 
is the stereotypically competitive one. I have no idea whether this has 
any basis in fact.

> In some countries
> students compete with every other student and the percentage of students
> that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you meet a certain
> level.

This is The Real WTF.

A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise 
the grades only compare you to your classmates. Well guess what? 
Employers aren't interested in whether you're better than your 
classmates or not. (You're probably never going to see them ever again 
anyway.) They're interested in whether you're capable of doing a given 
job. A relative grade doesn't tell them that; an absolute one could.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2011 04:58 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.

It is.

So is cooperation.

The trick is to find the correct balance between the two, IMHO.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2011 09:30 PM, Darren New wrote:

> Somehow, I read that literally the first time, and thought of all the
> charities that collect $X for every mile you walk.

LOL.

Actually, I was thinking... Our dance school really, really needs air 
conditioning. Do you know what happens if you put 80 people in a room 
with no windows and make them do strenuous exercise for 60 minutes? Let 
me tell you: it gets *warm*, and most of all it gets *humid*. Not fun.

I was thinking, we could have a dance marathon to raise money to install 
a cooling system. Something like "you pay me X for every Y seconds of 
dancing I manage to pull off without dropping dead". We have several 
dances that severely tax all but the fittest dancers...

...yeah, I'm sure it'll never happen. Nice idea though. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.09.2011 10:20, schrieb Invisible:

>> In some countries
>> students compete with every other student and the percentage of students
>> that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you meet a certain
>> level.
>
> This is The Real WTF.
>
> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
> the grades only compare you to your classmates. Well guess what?
> Employers aren't interested in whether you're better than your
> classmates or not. (You're probably never going to see them ever again
> anyway.) They're interested in whether you're capable of doing a given
> job. A relative grade doesn't tell them that; an absolute one could.

A relative grade does ok, provided the candidate employees provide 
information on which school/university they visited.

Post a reply to this message

>> This is The Real WTF.
>>
>> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
>> the grades only compare you to your classmates.
>
> A relative grade does ok, provided the candidate employees provide
> information on which school/university they visited.

Ideally, a grade B should be a grade B, regardless of where you got it. 
(Obviously there will always be a slightly subjective element to 
teaching and grading methods, but we should try to be as objective as we 
can.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.09.2011 12:41, schrieb Invisible:
>>> This is The Real WTF.
>>>
>>> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
>>> the grades only compare you to your classmates.
>>
>> A relative grade does ok, provided the candidate employees provide
>> information on which school/university they visited.
>
> Ideally, a grade B should be a grade B, regardless of where you got it.
> (Obviously there will always be a slightly subjective element to
> teaching and grading methods, but we should try to be as objective as we
> can.)

I didn't contradict that fixed criteria for a grade are superior to 
variable grades; all I said was that non-fixed grades are also able to 
do the job grades were invented for.

That aside, I don't think that there is such thing as "ideal" when it 
comes to grades. They're just a kludge to rate a person's capabilities 
anyway. Your math grade doesn't tell much about whether you'd make a 
good accountant; your native language grade doesn't tell much about 
whether you'd make a good news reporter; your informatics grade doesn't 
tell much about whether you'd make a good system administrator, database 
engineer or software developer.

Actually, an employer's primary concern may often be stuff that's not in 
the grades at all: Soft skills. Are you good at communicating with 
others? Are you good at motivating yourself/others? How do you perform 
under pressure? Are you good at cooperation (teamwork)? Are you good at 
competition (marketing strategies)?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2011 5:27 PM, andrel wrote:

> all functionality. What happens is that a very competitive person gets
> the top position by playing it hard. Everybody knows he got it that way
> and not by being the right person for the job. Then nobody wants to work
> with him (seldom a her) and nothing gets done.

Even if the person who gets to the top is not competitive, there is 
competition involved, it's just not as overt. That person got there 
either because he forced his way to the top (not necessarily because of 
competition, per se) or because he performed better in relevant areas 
and was awarded the job...

If you're destroying your competition, or stacking the odds in your 
favor by cheating, you are being anti-competitive. At that point, you 
are not competing, you are simply following your whim. But, it does 
appear outwardly as overt competition.




-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 9/20/2011 10:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.  Competition to find the
> 'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to continue.
>

I would argue that it goes far beyond human nature....


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 9/21/2011 3:20 AM, Invisible wrote:

> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
> the grades only compare you to your classmates. Well guess what?
> Employers aren't interested in whether you're better than your
> classmates or not. (You're probably never going to see them ever again
> anyway.) They're interested in whether you're capable of doing a given
> job. A relative grade doesn't tell them that; an absolute one could.

One may be qualified for the job, and is fully capable. But the other 
may have better qualifications. It *is* relative in the real world. But, 
I do agree that grading should be based on a fixed criteria. Grading is 
a means of checking to see if the student has learned what was taught, 
and what areas need more work.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 9/21/2011 3:16 AM, Invisible wrote:

> No, that's "cooperation". "Competition" is where you disregard everybody
> else and beat them out of the way by any means possible so that you get
> what you want.

But dealing with competition and exposing children to competition is a 
way to apply being fair and just. What you describe as competition is 
actually self-centeredness, and probably just plain antisocial. Being 
competitive means doing your best, not to bring the other competitors down.

I suppose there's two kinds of competition

healthy competition: Do the best you can, train hard, practice your 
skill, and in the end, someone will finish on top.

unhealthy competition: Do whatever it takes to win at all costs, 
including sabotaging your competitors, cheating, or eliminating the 
competition.

You're correct in your assertion that you've observed a lot of what I 
would consider unhealthy competition.

.. BUT, by not being exposed to competition, someone may lean more 
toward unhealthy competition, rather than learning how to be competitive 
without being brutal.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

I agree with Mike R

On 20/09/2011 6:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I think that is something that contributes to workplace violence as well.
>

I’ve worked in some pretty rough and stressful environments and in more 
than forty years have only seen or heard about three incidences of 
violence in the workplace. The last two was when I was working offshore 
and they had nothing to do with competitiveness. The first was when I 
was messing someone about when we were playing cards (penny anti stuff) 
and he pulled me across the table. Now he was someone who did not know 
how to lose. I had almost forgotten about that incident as it was over 
forty years ago.
Personally, I am not competitive but I can be combative. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2011 12:09 PM, clipka wrote:

> I didn't contradict that fixed criteria for a grade are superior to
> variable grades; all I said was that non-fixed grades are also able to
> do the job grades were invented for.

Fair enough.

> That aside, I don't think that there is such thing as "ideal" when it
> comes to grades. They're just a kludge to rate a person's capabilities
> anyway. Your math grade doesn't tell much about whether you'd make a
> good accountant; your native language grade doesn't tell much about
> whether you'd make a good news reporter; your informatics grade doesn't
> tell much about whether you'd make a good system administrator, database
> engineer or software developer.
>
> Actually, an employer's primary concern may often be stuff that's not in
> the grades at all: Soft skills. Are you good at communicating with
> others? Are you good at motivating yourself/others? How do you perform
> under pressure? Are you good at cooperation (teamwork)? Are you good at
> competition (marketing strategies)?

Grades in hard subjects are supposedly proxies for soft skills. That's 
supposedly why having a degree in philosophy is useful; it proves that 
you're capable of working hard enough and staying focused long enough to 
earn a degree. And supposedly that you have critical thinking skills and 
so forth.

I still think philosophy degrees are pointless. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 9/21/2011 8:08 AM, Stephen wrote:
> violence in the workplace. The last two was when I was working offshore
> and they had nothing to do with competitiveness. The first was when I
> was messing someone about when we were playing cards (penny anti stuff)
> and he pulled me across the table. Now he was someone who did not know
> how to lose. I had almost forgotten about that incident as it was over
> forty years ago.
> Personally, I am not competitive but I can be combative. ;-)

Ditto. I was in an office with a couple colleagues discussing something, 
what it was isn't relevant. I was sitting in a chair at a desk, and the 
guy who usually sits at that desk told me to get out of his chair. I 
chose to be a smartass and just sort of grinned at him and told him he 
didn't down the chair. He then proceeded to slam me back against the 
desk and was about ready to beat the crap out of me, except for the fact 
that everyone else in the room had grabbed him and pulled him away.

Nothing about competition there. I chose to mess with someone I thought 
could handle a bit of teasing, but turned out he couldn't.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:50:05 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 9/20/2011 10:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.  Competition to find
>> the 'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to
>> continue.
>>
>>
> I would argue that it goes far beyond human nature....

I wouldn't debate that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:21:05 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 21/09/2011 04:58 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.
> 
> It is.
> 
> So is cooperation.
> 
> The trick is to find the correct balance between the two, IMHO.

On that, we agree. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:20:24 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Employers
> aren't interested in whether you're better than your classmates or not.

In many industries, though, they are - "top of your class" means 
something depending on the school.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:08:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> I agree with Mike R
> 
> On 20/09/2011 6:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I think that is something that contributes to workplace violence as
>> well.
>>
>>
> I’ve worked in some pretty rough and stressful environments and in more
> than forty years have only seen or heard about three incidences of
> violence in the workplace. The last two was when I was working offshore
> and they had nothing to do with competitiveness. The first was when I
> was messing someone about when we were playing cards (penny anti stuff)
> and he pulled me across the table. Now he was someone who did not know
> how to lose. I had almost forgotten about that incident as it was over
> forty years ago.

I'm thinking about the incidents that make it to the news - the person 
who gets fired/laid off, goes home, comes back and shoots the office up.

> Personally, I am not competitive but I can be combative. ;-)

:)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:27:01 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Nothing about competition there.

Sure, I didn't say it was the only cause, I said it was a contributing 
factor in some cases.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2011 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm thinking about the incidents that make it to the news - the person
> who gets fired/laid off, goes home, comes back and shoots the office up.

http://tinyurl.com/3tdfdhy  :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:03:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/09/2011 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm thinking about the incidents that make it to the news - the person
>> who gets fired/laid off, goes home, comes back and shoots the office
>> up.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/3tdfdhy  :-P

:P indeed. ;)

When are you back out this way again? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2011 7:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/3tdfdhy   :-P
> :P indeed.;)
>
> When are you back out this way again?;)

I don't know.
I've finished at Urenco/NEF. "My work there is done, Robin."
I had a job set up in London with First Group/Greyhound Buses. But that 
fell through after the contract was signed. I've just had an interview 
with Tate & Lyle (also in London but the wrong side) that went well.
I'm not inclined to wait for two hours at "Homeland 
Security"/Immigration for a while. Never can tell though.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21-9-2011 5:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:27:48 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Just a quick note: competitiveness is partly cultural. In some countries
>> students compete with every other student and the percentage of students
>> that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you meet a certain
>> level.
>
> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.  Competition to find the
> 'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to continue.

I do not remember to have competed with any other person for a mate.
I mean, sure it is a competition, but an abstract one.
Finding a mate is entering a multidimensional competition where you 
don't know on what quality you will be scored and the rules change 
unpredictably during the competition. And the same silliness applies to 
that mate. (I think we might be the only species where we have 
simultaneous sexual selection on both genders, though no doubt Gilles 
will know a counterexample).

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 think Andy said it better than me. The balance between encouraging 
competition or cooperation differs between countries and cultures.


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

Post a reply to this message

On 21-9-2011 10:20, Invisible wrote:
>> Just a quick note: competitiveness is partly cultural.
>
> I hear China and Japan have more cooperative cultures, whereas America
> is the stereotypically competitive one. I have no idea whether this has
> any basis in fact.
>
>> In some countries
>> students compete with every other student and the percentage of students
>> that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you meet a certain
>> level.
>
> This is The Real WTF.
>
> A student's grades should *always* be based on fixed criteria. Otherwise
> the grades only compare you to your classmates. Well guess what?
> Employers aren't interested in whether you're better than your
> classmates or not. (You're probably never going to see them ever again
> anyway.) They're interested in whether you're capable of doing a given
> job. A relative grade doesn't tell them that; an absolute one could.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think relative grading is common in e.g. 
the US, Japan and Iran.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 21-9-2011 15:14, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 12:09 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>> I didn't contradict that fixed criteria for a grade are superior to
>> variable grades; all I said was that non-fixed grades are also able to
>> do the job grades were invented for.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> That aside, I don't think that there is such thing as "ideal" when it
>> comes to grades. They're just a kludge to rate a person's capabilities
>> anyway. Your math grade doesn't tell much about whether you'd make a
>> good accountant; your native language grade doesn't tell much about
>> whether you'd make a good news reporter; your informatics grade doesn't
>> tell much about whether you'd make a good system administrator, database
>> engineer or software developer.
>>
>> Actually, an employer's primary concern may often be stuff that's not in
>> the grades at all: Soft skills. Are you good at communicating with
>> others? Are you good at motivating yourself/others? How do you perform
>> under pressure? Are you good at cooperation (teamwork)? Are you good at
>> competition (marketing strategies)?
>
> Grades in hard subjects are supposedly proxies for soft skills. That's
> supposedly why having a degree in philosophy is useful; it proves that
> you're capable of working hard enough and staying focused long enough to
> earn a degree. And supposedly that you have critical thinking skills and
> so forth.
>
> I still think philosophy degrees are pointless. :-P

But then again, I think you would not score high in any of the soft 
skills clipka mentioned ;) Still, we all know there are jobs where you 
would excel.

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

Post a reply to this message

>>> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.  Competition to find
>>> the 'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to
>>> continue.
>>>
>> I would argue that it goes far beyond human nature....
>
> I wouldn't debate that.

More debatable is how much cooperative instincts extend beyond humans.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2011 09:42 PM, andrel wrote:

> I do not remember to have competed with any other person for a mate.
> I mean, sure it is a competition, but an abstract one.
> Finding a mate is entering a multidimensional competition where you
> don't know on what quality you will be scored and the rules change
> unpredictably during the competition.

Hell, if you think *finding* a mate is where the contest ends, you may 
be in for a bit of a shock... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21-9-2011 10:23, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/09/2011 09:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Somehow, I read that literally the first time, and thought of all the
>> charities that collect $X for every mile you walk.
>
> LOL.
>
> Actually, I was thinking... Our dance school really, really needs air
> conditioning. Do you know what happens if you put 80 people in a room
> with no windows and make them do strenuous exercise for 60 minutes? Let
> me tell you: it gets *warm*, and most of all it gets *humid*. Not fun.
>
> I was thinking, we could have a dance marathon to raise money to install
> a cooling system. Something like "you pay me X for every Y seconds of
> dancing I manage to pull off without dropping dead". We have several
> dances that severely tax all but the fittest dancers...
>
> ...yeah, I'm sure it'll never happen. Nice idea though. ;-)

That works the wrong way. The worse your room is the less you can 
collect. A more logical scheme would be 'you pay me X for every dancer 
that drops dead within some fixed time'.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2011 02:01 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/21/2011 3:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> No, that's "cooperation". "Competition" is where you disregard everybody
>> else and beat them out of the way by any means possible so that you get
>> what you want.
>
> But dealing with competition and exposing children to competition is a
> way to apply being fair and just. What you describe as competition is
> actually self-centeredness, and probably just plain antisocial. Being
> competitive means doing your best, not to bring the other competitors down.

Doing *your* best is about *yourself*. It has nothing to do with anybody 
else. It's something that everybody can strive towards, all on their own.

(Like I said, there are people who can beat everybody else in their 
class without even trying, and there are others who will probably never 
be able to beat anybody. Everyone is different.)

Competition is fundamentally about "I want me to win, not you". It runs 
/against/ the idea of being fair and just.

Then again, real life is unfortunately competitive from time to time, 
and children need to learn how to deal with that. (At least until we can 
find a way to eliminate it.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Actually, I was thinking... Our dance school really, really needs air
>> conditioning. Do you know what happens if you put 80 people in a room
>> with no windows and make them do strenuous exercise for 60 minutes? Let
>> me tell you: it gets *warm*, and most of all it gets *humid*. Not fun.
>>
>> I was thinking, we could have a dance marathon to raise money to install
>> a cooling system. Something like "you pay me X for every Y seconds of
>> dancing I manage to pull off without dropping dead". We have several
>> dances that severely tax all but the fittest dancers...
>>
>> ...yeah, I'm sure it'll never happen. Nice idea though. ;-)
>
> That works the wrong way. The worse your room is the less you can
> collect. A more logical scheme would be 'you pay me X for every dancer
> that drops dead within some fixed time'.

True. I was thinking it would have to be an outdoor event or something. 
(The school has a very large garden out back. You would need to make 
something to dance on though...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2011 09:49 PM, andrel wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong but I think relative grading is common in e.g.
> the US, Japan and Iran.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US legendary for being populated 
by idiots?

(I don't have any factual evidence that this reputation is actually 
deserved, nor that it's related to the US applying relative grading...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> Actually, an employer's primary concern may often be stuff that's not in
>>> the grades at all: Soft skills. Are you good at communicating with
>>> others? Are you good at motivating yourself/others? How do you perform
>>> under pressure? Are you good at cooperation (teamwork)? Are you good at
>>> competition (marketing strategies)?

>> I still think philosophy degrees are pointless. :-P
>
> But then again, I think you would not score high in any of the soft
> skills clipka mentioned ;)

Written communication? Well, I'm good enough that a random guy on the 
Internet paid me to write stuff for him.

Verbal communiation? Yeah, I'm OK, not great though.

Motivation? I have lots of that. Patience? Not so much...

Motivating others? Forget it.

Working under pressure? Pitiful.

Teamwork? I've never had the opportunity to be part of a team that 
wasn't dysfunctional.

Competition? Pitiful.

> Still, we all know there are jobs where you would excel.

Hmm, yes. Anything which doesn't involve talking to people, staying 
focused for more than five minutes, or dealing with deadlines.

Butterfly catcher? Daydream writer? Minion of the antichrist?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:09:48 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 21/09/2011 02:01 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 9/21/2011 3:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> No, that's "cooperation". "Competition" is where you disregard
>>> everybody else and beat them out of the way by any means possible so
>>> that you get what you want.
>>
>> But dealing with competition and exposing children to competition is a
>> way to apply being fair and just. What you describe as competition is
>> actually self-centeredness, and probably just plain antisocial. Being
>> competitive means doing your best, not to bring the other competitors
>> down.
> 
> Doing *your* best is about *yourself*. It has nothing to do with anybody
> else. It's something that everybody can strive towards, all on their
> own.

[...]

> Competition is fundamentally about "I want me to win, not you". It runs
> /against/ the idea of being fair and just.

One can compete against oneself as well.  Running around a track, trying 
to beat your own best time, for example.

> Then again, real life is unfortunately competitive from time to time,
> and children need to learn how to deal with that. (At least until we can
> find a way to eliminate it.)

Competition is itself not inherently bad.  Competition drives people to 
put out better and better products and services, for one thing.

There is such a thing as *healthy* competition.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:17:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 21/09/2011 09:49 PM, andrel wrote:
> 
>> Correct me if I am wrong but I think relative grading is common in e.g.
>> the US, Japan and Iran.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US legendary for being populated
> by idiots?

*facepalm*

WHEN oh WHEN are you going to learn that making broad sweeping 
generalisations is NOT a good way to operate?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:42:13 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 21-9-2011 5:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:27:48 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Just a quick note: competitiveness is partly cultural. In some
>>> countries students compete with every other student and the percentage
>>> of students that pass is fixed. In other countries you pass if you
>>> meet a certain level.
>>
>> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.  Competition to find
>> the 'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to
>> continue.
> 
> I do not remember to have competed with any other person for a mate. I
> mean, sure it is a competition, but an abstract one. Finding a mate is
> entering a multidimensional competition where you don't know on what
> quality you will be scored and the rules change unpredictably during the
> competition. And the same silliness applies to that mate. (I think we
> might be the only species where we have simultaneous sexual selection on
> both genders, though no doubt Gilles will know a counterexample).

I don't mean like a "gameshow" type of competition (though arguably those 
*do* exist).

But it is a competition, as you said.....

> 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.

> I think Andy said it better than me. The balance between encouraging
> competition or cooperation differs between countries and cultures.

Sure, it does vary from place to place, but competition is still there 
regardless of the culture or country.

The degree may well (and does) vary.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:54:08 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> I think competitiveness is part of human nature.  Competition to find
>>>> the 'best' mate, for example - something that drives the race to
>>>> continue.
>>>>
>>> I would argue that it goes far beyond human nature....
>>
>> I wouldn't debate that.
> 
> More debatable is how much cooperative instincts extend beyond humans.

Not really, cooperative instincts extend well beyond humans, and can be 
seen in nature.  Cooperation is needed for reproduction in most species, 
for example.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:41:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/09/2011 7:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3tdfdhy   :-P
>> :P indeed.;)
>>
>> When are you back out this way again?;)
> 
> I don't know.
> I've finished at Urenco/NEF. "My work there is done, Robin." I had a job
> set up in London with First Group/Greyhound Buses. But that fell through
> after the contract was signed. I've just had an interview with Tate &
> Lyle (also in London but the wrong side) that went well. I'm not
> inclined to wait for two hours at "Homeland Security"/Immigration for a
> while. Never can tell though.

I don't blame you.

Sorry to hear things are up in the air at the moment.  I had a lead on 
something a couple weeks ago, got some help getting the resume polished 
up, and then found out after applying that the final interviews were last 
Friday. :(

Got a very nice reference from an internal friend at a tech company for a 
lead tech writer position that's opened up there - a chance to do some 
management and work leading a team.  We may end up having to move to the 
Santa Clara area, but I *think* this position is one that would let us 
work from 'wherever' (one of the proposed team members is in Bangalore, 
so I don't think it matters much where I am on the west coast - it's 
still 11.5 hours' difference from there for half the year.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22-9-2011 5:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:17:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> On 21/09/2011 09:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong but I think relative grading is common in e.g.
>>> the US, Japan and Iran.
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US legendary for being populated
>> by idiots?
>
> *facepalm*
>
> WHEN oh WHEN are you going to learn that making broad sweeping
> generalisations is NOT a good way to operate?

I found this one rather funny.

In his defence: there was a sentence after that.

I am pretty sure that he knows that half of the regulars in this group 
are from the US. Just as that I am pretty sure that he knows that it is 
only half the US population that are idiots.


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

Post a reply to this message

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.

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

Post a reply to this message