 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
I would argue that "yourself" is ideally the /only/ person you should be
competing against.
> Competition is itself not inherently bad. Competition drives people to
> put out better and better products and services, for one thing.
From what I've seen, it drives people towards greater and greater
levels of obfuscation to prevent people realising how poor their
products and services are, rather than, you know, *actually* developing
better stuff. (The latter would cost *actual* money.)
> There is such a thing as *healthy* competition.
Sure. It's just uncommon.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-9-2011 18:53, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
I assume all die hard Pratchett fans know this, but this is where the
title of one of the books comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:32:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 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.
Sure, there was. Some of us resent being lumped in with the 'idiots'. :)
> 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.
Yeah, in retrospect, I expect he was trying for a reaction, and I gave
him what he wanted. <g>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
