 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
