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