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] devnull> 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