 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:33:21 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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.
I would disagree. There are circumstances where competing against an
external force of some sort drives one to better and better results.
>> 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.)
You have a very limited view of the world - that's something that's
pretty well established already. But, in fairness, it is your view.
I do not share that view.
Look at the competition between the US and the USSR back in the 60's in
the 'space race' - a *lot* of good came out of that, and the competition
was not only healthy but resulted in a great many scientific advances.
>> There is such a thing as *healthy* competition.
>
> Sure. It's just uncommon.
I disagree. It's just that the media sensationalizes the other kind so
much that healthy competition isn't much of a 'news' story.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/21/2011 8:58 PM, 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?
>
> Jim
Its a generalization? lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:18:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/21/2011 8:58 PM, 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?
>>
>> Jim
> Its a generalization? lol
*whap* ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/09/2011 11:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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 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?
>>
Quite true.
>> 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'. :)
>
Why would that be, I wonder?
>> 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.
>
LOL
> Yeah, in retrospect, I expect he was trying for a reaction, and I gave
> him what he wanted.<g>
>
> Jim
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/21/2011 10:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> WHEN oh WHEN are you going to learn that making broad sweeping
> generalisations is NOT a good way to operate?
Based on my daily experience, I'm inclined to think he's right. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-9-2011 6:22, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:35:32 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 23-9-2011 0:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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.
Sorry, but I am really not competitive. It isn't in my nature. When my
job would require me to compete with other people, I would go and find
another job.
I really think it is the other way around. Humans are by nature
cooperative but certain circumstances may force them to be competitive.
I know there is a lot of variation between individuals, gender and ages.
Some people might actually be more competitive than cooperative. But it
is a bell curve with a peak well into the cooperative side. Note that
the people far on the wrong leg of the curve are the most visible.
It is also my experience that people who think of themselves as
competitive are a disaster in any organization. Not the least by forcing
more cooperative people out. It is in my opinion one of the main reasons
there are not so many women in top positions. They, rightly, prefer a
good working environment over one where people break their promises and
tell you afterwards that it was just a game. Implying that you are not a
good sport, even childish, if you complain about it. So I will speak out
if someone is trying to pass on competitiveness as being part of being
human.
As you might guess I am speaking from experience. I have turned down
opportunities, because that would have forced me to work with
'competitive' and (therefore) unreliable persons.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-9-2011 11:10, andrel wrote:
> It is also my experience that people who think of themselves as
> competitive are a disaster in any organization. Not the least by forcing
> more cooperative people out. It is in my opinion one of the main reasons
> there are not so many women in top positions. They, rightly, prefer a
> good working environment over one where people break their promises and
> tell you afterwards that it was just a game. Implying that you are not a
> good sport, even childish, if you complain about it. So I will speak out
> if someone is trying to pass on competitiveness as being part of being
> human.
I knew I was looking for a metaphor here. I had the image, but could not
name the concept. Funny how a mind works.
It is this: competitive people are the tumors of society. They grow by
extracting nutrients from others and, if not treated, will kill the
organisation they grow in.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/24/2011 5:37, andrel wrote:
> It is this: competitive people are the tumors of society. They grow by
> extracting nutrients from others and, if not treated, will kill the
> organisation they grow in.
I think that's a bit harsh. But if you do all the game-theory stuff, it
turns out that the "tit for tat" strategy works best in an iterated
prisoner's dilemma. In other words, you most win by trusting the other guy
until he cheats, then cheating back until you get on par, then going back to
cooperating with him. In a very simplified environment, of course.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:37:34 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 24-9-2011 11:10, andrel wrote:
>
>> It is also my experience that people who think of themselves as
>> competitive are a disaster in any organization. Not the least by
>> forcing more cooperative people out. It is in my opinion one of the
>> main reasons there are not so many women in top positions. They,
>> rightly, prefer a good working environment over one where people break
>> their promises and tell you afterwards that it was just a game.
>> Implying that you are not a good sport, even childish, if you complain
>> about it. So I will speak out if someone is trying to pass on
>> competitiveness as being part of being human.
>
> I knew I was looking for a metaphor here. I had the image, but could not
> name the concept. Funny how a mind works. It is this: competitive people
> are the tumors of society. They grow by extracting nutrients from others
> and, if not treated, will kill the organisation they grow in.
I agree with Darren - that is a bit harsh.
You are assuming all competition is harmful, but it isn't.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-9-2011 21:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:37:34 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 24-9-2011 11:10, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> It is also my experience that people who think of themselves as
>>> competitive are a disaster in any organization. Not the least by
>>> forcing more cooperative people out. It is in my opinion one of the
>>> main reasons there are not so many women in top positions. They,
>>> rightly, prefer a good working environment over one where people break
>>> their promises and tell you afterwards that it was just a game.
>>> Implying that you are not a good sport, even childish, if you complain
>>> about it. So I will speak out if someone is trying to pass on
>>> competitiveness as being part of being human.
>>
>> I knew I was looking for a metaphor here. I had the image, but could not
>> name the concept. Funny how a mind works. It is this: competitive people
>> are the tumors of society. They grow by extracting nutrients from others
>> and, if not treated, will kill the organisation they grow in.
>
> I agree with Darren - that is a bit harsh.
Sure, I know that.
> 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.
Look at the disasters in the financial world, look at the industry and
organizations for places that you might like to work in and those that
you don't.
Is all competition always beneficial?
Look also at a cross section of a town or your family. How many are
competing for resources or jobs just because they like it?
Then ask yourself the question, are all humans competitive by nature?
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> Look at the disasters in the financial world, look at the industry and
> organizations for places that you might like to work in and those that
> you don't.
I've been observing the problems in the financial world, and to
reiterate, I never said *all* competition was *good* competition.
> Is all competition always beneficial?
No, and I never made that claim. I've explicitly said that there is
beneficial competition and harmful competition.
> Look also at a cross section of a town or your family. How many are
> competing for resources or jobs just because they like it?
It isn't a question of liking it. "Nature" doesn't mean "we do this only
because we like it".
> 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?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:18:27 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake thusly:
> 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.
Let me ask this - do we teach our children to be competitive because it's
a competitive world out there or is it a competitive world because we
teach out children to be competitive?
Mike touches on most of my thoughts, competition is a shading. I've
discussed this in a comment on my blog here
http://flipc.blogspot.com/2011/09/truancy-equals-benefits-cut.html To
summarise - a pupil gets points, the class points are a sum of the pupils'
the year's points a sum of the classes'. If the year hits a total they get
a prize picked by the highest class.
So consider a pure competition - a race. 10 entrants, the winner is the
first to cross the line, everyone else are losers. The winner might win by
being better, they might win by only competing against only those they
know are worse than they; they might win because they threatened the
others with physical violence, or they might have won because they spiked
their drinks with a laxative. If the only thing being taught is that it's
important to win all those methods are equally valid.
Instead of winners and losers, let's award points. 10 points to the first
place and so on down the line. This works to a degree in that there's
still some competition, but it does little to push the first placed racer
and little to differentiate say a first place at 20 seconds with a second
place at 25 seconds.
Simplistically one could base scores on the fastest time. 10 points for
the 20 second racer, but only 8 points for the 25 second one
(10-(25-20)/2)). That would encourage everyone, but in the wrong way. To
maximise points everyone would run at the same speed and everyone would
score the same maximum of 10.
Set a threshold and things differ. If the threshold is 20 seconds the
first place runner gets their 20 points and so on down the line; but more
importantly if they beat the threshold they get extra points. Stick
together and everyone gets the same low point score. It becomes better for
the year as a whole to try and beat the time.
So in this situation who's competing against whom? Who are the winners,
who are the losers?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>> Look at the disasters in the financial world, look at the industry and
>> organizations for places that you might like to work in and those that
>> you don't.
>
> I've been observing the problems in the financial world, and to
> reiterate, I never said *all* competition was *good* competition.
>
>> Is all competition always beneficial?
>
> 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. ;)
Note also that I did not think that you got of the rails and I did not
stop listening completely.
>> Look also at a cross section of a town or your family. How many are
>> competing for resources or jobs just because they like it?
>
> 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.
>> 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?
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.
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.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/09/2011 11:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps it's more cultural than I initially thought.:) I read an
> interesting article today atwww.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.
And this is news? ;-)
I would agree with the article.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:32:18 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>> 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.
Exactly. :)
>> 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.
LOL, fair point. ;)
>> 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'.
When it's something that in general people have a tendency to do but
cannot (perhaps) explain why. It's not about a specific person's
predisposition, but more about 'herd mentality' (if you will).
There are some behaviours in people that you can generally predict. You
can predict that when there is an automobile accident, people will tend
to slow down and gawk. Some will stop to help (not as many as one would
hope), most will slow down to get a good look, and then move on. There
are some who will just be annoyed at the slowdown in traffic and wish
everyone would either decide to stop and help or just get a move on.
But the 'human nature' in this scenario is to slow down to get a good
look at the damage, say "damn, that looks bad" and then get on with their
day.
>> 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?
Compete for market share. Compete for money. Compete for power,
prestige, etc, etc, etc.
> > 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.
That's not the way it works, though. You work in academia IIRC, are you
saying you don't compete for grant money for research you're working on?
>> 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?
You've said that you're not competitive by nature, but in fact, you do
compete even if you don't call it that.
>>> 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.
No, I remember someone making that statement, too. I thought it was
you. :)
> What I find interesting is that an American realizes that cultural
> differences exist. They often seem to have trouble understanding that.
> Must be cultural.
LOL! Many Americans do - as a society, we tend to be overconfident and
tend to underachieve. There was a study done recently about how students
around the world perform on exams, with Americans scoring somewhere in
the middle on actual score, but their confidence in answering the exam
questions was #1. So, we're #1 and thinking we're #1.
Of course that doesn't apply to *all* of us. My wife and I would fit in
very well in UK society - we were out visiting friends once and stopped
in a chip shop down in Brighton (I think it was, it's been a few years),
and the staff couldn't figure out where we were from. Our accents had
slipped a bit towards UK (not a conscious thing - I can always tell when
my wife's been talking to her parents in Pennsylvania, and she can always
tell when I've been talking with my mom in Minnesota), and eventually one
of them asked.
When we said we were visiting from Utah, they were very surprised -
partly because of our dress (quite "British" in style - not at all the
"loud colours" that the stereotypical American tourist wears) and they
had to ask me to repeat my order because I'm *very* soft-spoken.
We can be pretty hard to pigeonhole. ;)
>>> 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. ;)
Fair points, though employed/not employed - at least right now - is kinda
a big detail.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:57:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 11:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps it's more cultural than I initially thought.:) I read an
>> interesting article today atwww.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.
>
> And this is news? ;-)
For some Americans, I think it probably is. I found it insightful, but a
certain degree of "stating the obvious".
> I would agree with the article.
I suspected you might. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-9-2011 20:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:32:18 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's not the way it works, though. You work in academia IIRC, are you
> saying you don't compete for grant money for research you're working on?
No I do, and I hate it, and so does almost everyone I know. (meaning
that someone I know might like it, but that I never noticed. Put another
way: everyone that said something about it in my company hates it). We
are forced by others to do so, even though we know the system does not
work and can never work. At least not until someone invents a time machine.
So yes, I am competing, but I am still not competitive and actually
there is no competition either. (there are arbitrary numbers attached to
the entries, combined in an arbitrary way and then an arbitrary
threshold is set in order spend the budget but no more).
>>> 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?
>
> You've said that you're not competitive by nature, but in fact, you do
> compete even if you don't call it that.
It is not a competition if there are no rules.
>>>> 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.
>
> No, I remember someone making that statement, too. I thought it was
> you. :)
What? Oh yes indeed, it was apparently even the first thing I said.
>> What I find interesting is that an American realizes that cultural
>> differences exist. They often seem to have trouble understanding that.
>> Must be cultural.
>
> LOL! Many Americans do - as a society, we tend to be overconfident and
> tend to underachieve. There was a study done recently about how students
> around the world perform on exams, with Americans scoring somewhere in
> the middle on actual score, but their confidence in answering the exam
> questions was #1. So, we're #1 and thinking we're #1.
Which might annoy the hell out of an international group if all but one
realize that the American does not know what he is talking about.
>>> 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. ;)
>
> Fair points, though employed/not employed - at least right now - is kinda
> a big detail.
It is the focus of your attention, which might not be the same thing.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:17:52 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 27-9-2011 20:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:32:18 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's not the way it works, though. You work in academia IIRC, are
>> you saying you don't compete for grant money for research you're
>> working on?
>
> No I do, and I hate it, and so does almost everyone I know. (meaning
> that someone I know might like it, but that I never noticed. Put another
> way: everyone that said something about it in my company hates it). We
> are forced by others to do so, even though we know the system does not
> work and can never work. At least not until someone invents a time
> machine. So yes, I am competing, but I am still not competitive and
> actually there is no competition either. (there are arbitrary numbers
> attached to the entries, combined in an arbitrary way and then an
> arbitrary threshold is set in order spend the budget but no more).
Well, I would suggest that there is a competition and that you are
competing - there are a finite amount of money available, right? And
that money goes to the person or team that makes the best case for
receiving it?
>>>> 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?
>>
>> You've said that you're not competitive by nature, but in fact, you do
>> compete even if you don't call it that.
>
> It is not a competition if there are no rules.
Sure it is. I've never seen a definition of competition that says there
have to be rules (though ultimately even if there are no rules, the
'rule' is to 'be the best' or 'be the top').
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, I remember someone making that statement, too. I thought it was
>> you. :)
>
> What? Oh yes indeed, it was apparently even the first thing I said.
LOL
>> LOL! Many Americans do - as a society, we tend to be overconfident and
>> tend to underachieve. There was a study done recently about how
>> students around the world perform on exams, with Americans scoring
>> somewhere in the middle on actual score, but their confidence in
>> answering the exam questions was #1. So, we're #1 and thinking we're
>> #1.
>
> Which might annoy the hell out of an international group if all but one
> realize that the American does not know what he is talking about.
Absolutely. It's one of the things I dislike about the American
'persona'. We're not a homogenous people in any way, but I think
especially in our level of conceit. Some here are *far* more conceited
than others, and they aren't afraid to tell the whole world that they're
wrong.
They forget that our democracy is only about 200 years old, and there are
far, far older civilizations in the world that have much more
experience. We're collectively like the teenager at the stage of "I know
everything and my parents no NOTHING". But individually, we're not.
>>>> 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. ;)
>>
>> Fair points, though employed/not employed - at least right now - is
>> kinda a big detail.
>
> It is the focus of your attention, which might not be the same thing.
Possibly. I know I can manage paying the bills for another 6 months or
so by dipping into our reserves, but I'd rather not do that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-9-2011 22:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:17:52 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> Fair points, though employed/not employed - at least right now - is
>>> kinda a big detail.
>>
>> It is the focus of your attention, which might not be the same thing.
>
> Possibly. I know I can manage paying the bills for another 6 months or
> so by dipping into our reserves, but I'd rather not do that.
remind me (and the others) what you are looking for. There's too many
people here to remember everything from everybody for me. (even if you
told it 2 days ago).
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:14:48 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 27-9-2011 22:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:17:52 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Fair points, though employed/not employed - at least right now - is
>>>> kinda a big detail.
>>>
>>> It is the focus of your attention, which might not be the same thing.
>>
>> Possibly. I know I can manage paying the bills for another 6 months or
>> so by dipping into our reserves, but I'd rather not do that.
>
> remind me (and the others) what you are looking for. There's too many
> people here to remember everything from everybody for me. (even if you
> told it 2 days ago).
I know the feeling. :)
I'm looking for something in technical program management or technical
writing. I'm willing to consider technical consulting as well, but the
situation would have to be right. I've been prepping to become a front-
line manager (that was prior to the layoff), and have skills in technical
education, testing, and technical certification programs.
I have a strong interest in continuing to pursue remote lab-based
testing, particularly the architecture of systems to do this kind of
testing. (I'm not a hardcore developer, but I could lead a team of
developers to achieve that kind of goal).
Thanks!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/09/2011 9:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Absolutely. It's one of the things I dislike about the American
> 'persona'. We're not a homogenous people in any way, but I think
> especially in our level of conceit. Some here are*far* more conceited
> than others, and they aren't afraid to tell the whole world that they're
> wrong.
>
My experience agrees with this. Most Americans that I have met are
polite and courteous and when they say “have a good day”. I feel that
they mean it.
> They forget that our democracy is only about 200 years old, and there are
> far, far older civilizations in the world that have much more
> experience. We're collectively like the teenager at the stage of "I know
> everything and my parents no NOTHING". But individually, we're not.
I’ve also noticed that a lot of Americans, and Australians too, develop
an inferiority complex when confronted with something more than 400
years old.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:44:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/09/2011 9:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Absolutely. It's one of the things I dislike about the American
>> 'persona'. We're not a homogenous people in any way, but I think
>> especially in our level of conceit. Some here are*far* more conceited
>> than others, and they aren't afraid to tell the whole world that
>> they're wrong.
>>
>>
> My experience agrees with this. Most Americans that I have met are
> polite and courteous and when they say “have a good day”. I feel that
> they mean it.
I find something similar - we have our lunatics, of course, and the news
media elevates the lunatics. Most people aren't like the lunatics.
>> They forget that our democracy is only about 200 years old, and there
>> are far, far older civilizations in the world that have much more
>> experience. We're collectively like the teenager at the stage of "I
>> know everything and my parents no NOTHING". But individually, we're
>> not.
>
> I’ve also noticed that a lot of Americans, and Australians too, develop
> an inferiority complex when confronted with something more than 400
> years old.
I'm reminded of a bit from one of Eddie Izzard's routines - about how in
the US we're "proud" to restore something to what it was *50 years ago* -
"No, that's impossible, nobody was ALIVE back then!" ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-9-2011 11:44, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/09/2011 9:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Absolutely. It's one of the things I dislike about the American
>> 'persona'. We're not a homogenous people in any way, but I think
>> especially in our level of conceit. Some here are*far* more conceited
>> than others, and they aren't afraid to tell the whole world that they're
>> wrong.
>>
>
> My experience agrees with this. Most Americans that I have met are
> polite and courteous and when they say “have a good day”. I feel that
> they mean it.
>
>
>> They forget that our democracy is only about 200 years old, and there are
>> far, far older civilizations in the world that have much more
>> experience. We're collectively like the teenager at the stage of "I know
>> everything and my parents no NOTHING". But individually, we're not.
>
> I’ve also noticed that a lot of Americans, and Australians too, develop
> an inferiority complex when confronted with something more than 400
> years old.
Me too, funny isn't it. I am part of a culture that is a few thousand
years old (although it has changed so much since the late 60's (and a
few times before and after) that you can hardly call it the same
culture). I have had friends living in houses that date back from before
columbus. Still, I was born in the 60's and there nothing that makes me
older than an American of the same age.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/09/2011 9:30 PM, andrel wrote:
> Me too, funny isn't it. I am part of a culture that is a few thousand
> years old (although it has changed so much since the late 60's (and a
> few times before and after) that you can hardly call it the same
> culture). I have had friends living in houses that date back from before
> columbus. Still, I was born in the 60's and there nothing that makes me
> older than an American of the same age.
When every day you pass without paying special attention to ancient
things it makes you blasé. As a child my milk round took me past Govan
Old Parish Church where you could see carvings from the 10th and 11th
centuries. Provand's Lordship near Glasgow Cathedral was built in the
15th Cent. 100 year old houses don’t look particularly old. Luckily we
did not have too many air raids during WWII
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/28/2011 2:44, Stephen wrote:
> I’ve also noticed that a lot of Americans, and Australians too,
develop an
> inferiority complex when confronted with something more than 400 years
old.
True. Then we laugh when you hear of something 400 kilometers across and
think that's big. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/09/2011 8:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 2:44, Stephen wrote:
>> I’ve also noticed that a lot of Americans, and Australians too,
>> develop an
>> inferiority complex when confronted with something more than 400 years
>> old.
>
> True. Then we laugh when you hear of something 400 kilometers across and
> think that's big. ;-)
>
Funny that you mention it.
A Colleague at my last project just completed a sponsored 200 mile bike
ride to the beach, from Monroe, NC to Sunset Beach of the same state.
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/bike-ms-mid-atlantic/event-details/index.aspx
Actually it is not really the distance that is the problem but the
geography in between.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
