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