>> 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