Competition

[Insanity]

Okay, so I wanted to discuss the most recent post.  Part of me liked it, part of me did not…

What I did like - was the response to the teachers soliloquy.  That was just an asinine thing to say as it really was based on stereotypes (however true they may or may not be) and leads to impressions you don't want to make.

That said, I think competition is a good thing.  The competition is a against yourself.  How do YOU become a better person than you were yesterday.   How do you put yourself in a position to provide a better life for yourself.  I don't remember who said it -- but there is the old adage "nobody said they regretted working more" when they were on their death bed, I am sure there are those who wish they had worked harder to provide a better life for themselves and those that they are care about.

i also think that going from competition to mindless accumulation was an interesting jump.  I don't think they are the same at all.  I am a competitive person.  I love volleyball, hockey, baseball, video games, and there is no harsher critic than myself for the work that I do.  I don't see how one really has anything to do with the other. 

Can someone explain if I missed a jump in there?

[matchewed]

I personally feel that if competition works for you, and you use it to better yourself as you state then fine.

But competition for the sake of competition may just generate cultural side effects that aren't good long term things for our society (keeping up w/ the Joneses).

But it can't be all bad, competition has also spawned things like the space race of the 50's/60's. So much like many things in life it is not universally bad or good but a combination of both.

[FunkyStickman]

That said, I think competition is a good thing.  The competition is a against yourself.  How do YOU become a better person than you were yesterday.   How do you put yourself in a position to provide a better life for yourself.  I don't remember who said it -- but there is the old adage "nobody said they regretted working more" when they were on their death bed, I am sure there are those who wish they had worked harder to provide a better life for themselves and those that they are care about.

Your flaw in logic is the assumption that working harder to earn more will make you happier. Once the basic human survival needs are met, making more and having more doesn't correlate to more happiness. This is the entire basis of what MMM is all about. And if you have an understanding of what makes people happy, you would know that "providing a better life for themselves and others" has almost nothing to do with money.

i also think that going from competition to mindless accumulation was an interesting jump.  I don't think they are the same at all.  I am a competitive person.  I love volleyball, hockey, baseball, video games, and there is no harsher critic than myself for the work that I do.  I don't see how one really has anything to do with the other. 

Why exactly do you feel the need to be competitive? Physically speaking, it isn't strictly needed for survival in today's world. Psychologically speaking, it's only useful for learning how to deal with success and failure, and there are other ways to learn that. So assuming you don't need to be competitive to survive, and you already know how to deal with success and failure, why do you do it?

You can use it to better yourself, but that doesn't require being competitive with other people. You can be a faster runner, stronger athlete, etc. without ever "beating" somebody else. It is a tool people use to artificially create a need, to force themselves to do something they wouldn't otherwise. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't necessary.

I'm not what most people think of as a "competitive" person, because I don't like team sports (for the above stated reasons). However, I am fiercely competitive with myself, and am always striving to improve my physical and mental state. I race against the clock, and it works for me.

But it can't be all bad, competition has also spawned things like the space race of the 50's/60's. So much like many things in life it is not universally bad or good but a combination of both.

Imagine what could have been accomplished if the countries had worked together instead. I'm just saying. The "Space Race" was an artificial means to get people to perform above what they thought they could do, but it didn't spawn anything. The desire was there, the technology was there, they could have gotten it done eventually with or without competition.

If you learn to put forth the effort without artificial motivations... true greatness can be achieved.

[matchewed]

But it can't be all bad, competition has also spawned things like the space race of the 50's/60's. So much like many things in life it is not universally bad or good but a combination of both.

Imagine what could have been accomplished if the countries had worked together instead. I'm just saying. The "Space Race" was an artificial means to get people to perform above what they thought they could do, but it didn't spawn anything. The desire was there, the technology was there, they could have gotten it done eventually with or without competition.

If you learn to put forth the effort without artificial motivations... true greatness can be achieved.

I think you may have a rosier picture of human nature than I do. :)

Do you have any actual examples of massive human accomplishment that was not driven by some form of competition? Or any examples of this true greatness?

Just to say we had the capacity does not mean it would come to fruition. There are several technologies and science avenues that deserve money and resources that would benefit all of humanity. For some reason we rarely gel together to accomplish them. However add in a dash of competition, even if it is artificially created, and you can see results occur much more rapidly.

[FunkyStickman]

I think you may have a rosier picture of human nature than I do. :)

Do you have any actual examples of massive human accomplishment that was not driven by some form of competition? Or any examples of this true greatness?

Just to say we had the capacity does not mean it would come to fruition. There are several technologies and science avenues that deserve money and resources that would benefit all of humanity. For some reason we rarely gel together to accomplish them. However add in a dash of competition, even if it is artificially created, and you can see results occur much more rapidly.

First thing that comes to mind is the International Space Station. Countless scientific and medical studies have been done internationally. There are countless world-wide safety and quality standards in effect, most notably those hosted by the ISO.

[matchewed]

I think you may have a rosier picture of human nature than I do. :)

Do you have any actual examples of massive human accomplishment that was not driven by some form of competition? Or any examples of this true greatness?

Just to say we had the capacity does not mean it would come to fruition. There are several technologies and science avenues that deserve money and resources that would benefit all of humanity. For some reason we rarely gel together to accomplish them. However add in a dash of competition, even if it is artificially created, and you can see results occur much more rapidly.

First thing that comes to mind is the International Space Station. Countless scientific and medical studies have been done internationally. There are countless world-wide safety and quality standards in effect, most notably those hosted by the ISO.

I find it interesting that the first thing you cite is a legacy from that same competition I mentioned.

However I think we're getting too far down one small part of what I wrote and forgetting the rest of what I wrote in which I mentioned that competition can be bad. Saying that we can cooperate and accomplish things does not invalidate my original point about competition being capable of generating advancement. Much like MMM stated capitalism is founded on this very concept. Just because cooperation works doesn't mean competition doesn't. Both will have their pros and cons.

[totoro]

I don't remember who said it -- but there is the old adage "nobody said they regretted working more" when they were on their death bed, I am sure there are those who wish they had worked harder to provide a better life for themselves and those that they are care about.

Actually, you got the quote wrong.  One of the top five regrets of the dying is "I wish that I hadn’t worked so hard".

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/top-5-regrets-people-have-on-their-deathbed.html#ixzz2rcu3UEVi

My thought on competition is that some people are more competitive and some societies and specific environments promote competition.  It can be good to stir up productivity.  It can also be an effective way to promote some behaviours that don't make sense to me - like buying the biggest and newest stuff.

I'm not very competitive and I don't wish I had worked harder.   I'm more interested in ideas and problem solving.  I never understood how competitive people were at law school and, while I was competitive when playing sports, I don't like watching sports much.  When I see people competing I feel a bit anxious to be honest.  I'd rather be part of a group working for a solution to something together.

[BPA]

"Massive human accomplishments" are in the eye of the beholder.

I would much rather live a life where I was kind and cooperative and not stressed out than be some obsessed cutthroat in order to secure self-esteem.

I am very good at my job because I don't let my ego determine how much I help others. 

[Insanity]

I don't remember who said it -- but there is the old adage "nobody said they regretted working more" when they were on their death bed, I am sure there are those who wish they had worked harder to provide a better life for themselves and those that they are care about.

Actually, you got the quote wrong.  One of the top five regrets of the dying is "I wish that I hadn’t worked so hard".

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/top-5-regrets-people-have-on-their-deathbed.html#ixzz2rcu3UEVi

You are right, I forgot the "not working more"

[Jamesqf]

Your flaw in logic is the assumption that working harder to earn more will make you happier.

Your flaw in logic is in assuming that the goal of working harder is to earn more.  Now I put in a good bit of fairly hard physical work/exercise, with no more goal than to stay in good shape - and indeed, I often drive myself to try to bike a bit faster, or do a few more reps.  You'd seem to be arguing that I should instead become a couch potato, and avoid the hard work.

Or for another example, at one time I put in a good bit of hard physical & mental work learning to play music.  Should I have foregone this, and just bought a Walkman?  (It was pre-iPod.)

[FunkyStickman]

Your flaw in logic is in assuming that the goal of working harder is to earn more.  Now I put in a good bit of fairly hard physical work/exercise, with no more goal than to stay in good shape - and indeed, I often drive myself to try to bike a bit faster, or do a few more reps.  You'd seem to be arguing that I should instead become a couch potato, and avoid the hard work.

Or for another example, at one time I put in a good bit of hard physical & mental work learning to play music.  Should I have foregone this, and just bought a Walkman?  (It was pre-iPod.)

Not at all. Self-improvement does not have to be a matter of competition, as I said. I don't "compete" with other people when I bike or play music, I "compete" with myself to do it harder/better/faster/stronger than I did last time.

The original quote about "working harder" referred to working at a job, not self-improvement.

[GuitarStv]

i also think that going from competition to mindless accumulation was an interesting jump.  I don't think they are the same at all.  I am a competitive person.  I love volleyball, hockey, baseball, video games, and there is no harsher critic than myself for the work that I do.  I don't see how one really has anything to do with the other. 

Why exactly do you feel the need to be competitive? Physically speaking, it isn't strictly needed for survival in today's world. Psychologically speaking, it's only useful for learning how to deal with success and failure, and there are other ways to learn that. So assuming you don't need to be competitive to survive, and you already know how to deal with success and failure, why do you do it?

You can use it to better yourself, but that doesn't require being competitive with other people. You can be a faster runner, stronger athlete, etc. without ever "beating" somebody else. It is a tool people use to artificially create a need, to force themselves to do something they wouldn't otherwise. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't necessary.

I'm not what most people think of as a "competitive" person, because I don't like team sports (for the above stated reasons). However, I am fiercely competitive with myself, and am always striving to improve my physical and mental state. I race against the clock, and it works for me.

Competition is of vital importance in learning to defend yourself with a martial art.  If you can't use the techniques you've learned to overcome a stronger aggressive opponent then you haven't really mastered the technique you're studying.  For me personally, it's only under pressure in intense competition that I best learned to apply the chokes, locks, and throws.

[totoro]

I'm not sure about self-competition.  If competition with yourself motivates you then I think that is great.  I don't think everyone works this way.

I'm more concerned about good habits and then about doing more of what makes me happy and less of what doesn't.  I don't time myself when I walk, I tend to look at garden design or make sure my dog is getting enough exercise.  I like hot yoga because of how it makes me feel, not because I can beat my past performance.

I am willing to put the time in for the benefits, not to win against anything.  Actually, that probably sums up how I approach something like exercise, I do it for the benefits. 

[FunkyStickman]

i also think that going from competition to mindless accumulation was an interesting jump.  I don't think they are the same at all.  I am a competitive person.  I love volleyball, hockey, baseball, video games, and there is no harsher critic than myself for the work that I do.  I don't see how one really has anything to do with the other. 

Why exactly do you feel the need to be competitive? Physically speaking, it isn't strictly needed for survival in today's world. Psychologically speaking, it's only useful for learning how to deal with success and failure, and there are other ways to learn that. So assuming you don't need to be competitive to survive, and you already know how to deal with success and failure, why do you do it?

You can use it to better yourself, but that doesn't require being competitive with other people. You can be a faster runner, stronger athlete, etc. without ever "beating" somebody else. It is a tool people use to artificially create a need, to force themselves to do something they wouldn't otherwise. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't necessary.

I'm not what most people think of as a "competitive" person, because I don't like team sports (for the above stated reasons). However, I am fiercely competitive with myself, and am always striving to improve my physical and mental state. I race against the clock, and it works for me.

Competition is of vital importance in learning to defend yourself with a martial art.  If you can't use the techniques you've learned to overcome a stronger aggressive opponent then you haven't really mastered the technique you're studying.  For me personally, it's only under pressure in intense competition that I best learned to apply the chokes, locks, and throws.

That's a good point, hadn't thought about competitive martial arts. Competition is a very good way to improve in combat situations. It's not required to learn the moves, but definitely helps to learn a defensive mindset.

I'm definitely not saying competition is useless, it does work, and it does get results. My personal opinion is that it (meaning inter-personal competition) is only good up to a certain point. I don't see it as the best way to do things, and I don't get much enjoyment out of strictly win/lose scenarios, even if I win.

I have done a lot of things I didn't think I could do by challenging myself, but that is not the same as competition.

[tooqk4u22]

I think you may have a rosier picture of human nature than I do. :)

Do you have any actual examples of massive human accomplishment that was not driven by some form of competition? Or any examples of this true greatness?

Just to say we had the capacity does not mean it would come to fruition. There are several technologies and science avenues that deserve money and resources that would benefit all of humanity. For some reason we rarely gel together to accomplish them. However add in a dash of competition, even if it is artificially created, and you can see results occur much more rapidly.

First thing that comes to mind is the International Space Station. Countless scientific and medical studies have been done internationally. There are countless world-wide safety and quality standards in effect, most notably those hosted by the ISO.

So the very competition that led to nothing meaningful resulted in a superb example of strengths of cooperation.  Besides the space station I would argue that what you chose as artificial competition that led to nothing meaningful is one of the competitions that led to more meaningful developments than any other competition in history - there were an endless amount of technological advances including early developments that lead up to us being able to do this.

[Albert]

Intense competition is the cornerstone of human nature and without it there would be no civilisation. People who advance science, technology and other creative fields tend to be very competitive. Cooperative too when needed, but there is always some competition in there. Not necessarily for money, more often for fame and recognition.

For me sports is only interesting if I can beat someone else and the same goes for board games. :)

[FunkyStickman]

So the very competition that led to nothing meaningful resulted in a superb example of strengths of cooperation.  Besides the space station I would argue that what you chose as artificial competition that led to nothing meaningful is one of the competitions that led to more meaningful developments than any other competition in history - there were an endless amount of technological advances including early developments that lead up to us being able to do this.

I never said competition can't accomplish anything, I said I believe it's not the best way to achieve great results.

For me sports is only interesting if I can beat someone else and the same goes for board games. :)

That doesn't interest me at all. I like to play whether I win or lose, for the community and quality time I spend with my friends. I have no interest in playing competitive sports with people I don't even know, doesn't mean anything significant to me.

My son is in a stage right now where he refuses to play anything that he doesn't think he can win at. It's insufferably irritating at times. As recently as 11 years old, he would go in his room and cry if he lost at anything, even a card game. We've been working very hard to teach him to enjoy playing the game for what it is, and not tying his self-worth up in something that he has very little control over.

[totoro]

I'm the same.  I play board games because I get to spend time with people I want to.  I don't like losing repeatedly at cards at all, but I also don't like winning too many games in a row.

[Jamesqf]

The original quote about "working harder" referred to working at a job, not self-improvement.

I realize that: my point is what's the difference?  Other than the fact that I presumably get a monetary reward for working at a job, in addition to the reward of self-improvement.

[FunkyStickman]

The original quote about "working harder" referred to working at a job, not self-improvement.

I realize that: my point is what's the difference?  Other than the fact that I presumably get a monetary reward for working at a job, in addition to the reward of self-improvement.

That is exactly the difference. Earning more money past a certain point doesn't make you happier, self-improvement does. Decades of research backs this up.

I'll go ahead and put this here, since there are those who will be too lazy to look up the research on it.
Yes, making more money will make you happier... but only up to a certain point. Once you get past survival mode, it has very little effect on overall happiness.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201209/is-money-the-secret-happiness

And MMM's reply to these findings:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/09/06/does-peak-happiness-really-come-at-75000year/

In summary: competition for the sake of increasing your income, i.e. work competition, achieves only so much.

[GuitarStv]

The original quote about "working harder" referred to working at a job, not self-improvement.

I realize that: my point is what's the difference?  Other than the fact that I presumably get a monetary reward for working at a job, in addition to the reward of self-improvement.

That is exactly the difference. Earning more money past a certain point doesn't make you happier, self-improvement does. Decades of research backs this up.

I'll go ahead and put this here, since there are those who will be too lazy to look up the research on it.
Yes, making more money will make you happier... but only up to a certain point. Once you get past survival mode, it has very little effect on overall happiness.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201209/is-money-the-secret-happiness

And MMM's reply to these findings:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/09/06/does-peak-happiness-really-come-at-75000year/

In summary: competition for the sake of increasing your income, i.e. work competition, achieves only so much.

Well actually, as you've shown above . . . competition for the sake of increasing your income seems to work exceptionally well.

The question of whether or not more money makes you happy of course, is completely distinct.


I'm not sure why you don't think that competition can aid in self improvement.  To me, friendly competition is a tremendous motivator.  I hear someone playing a song that I don't know, so I'm inspired to learn how they do what they do.  I see someone doing something that looks fun, I'm try to give it a go myself.

Of course, one of the most important parts of competition is the interpersonal interactions that happen.  Learning to be a gracious winner and avoiding being a sore loser is of fundamental importance in our society.  Looking at a loss as a chance to improve, analyzing mistakes, creating new strategy/technique . . . this isn't superfluous knowledge.  It's a huge motivator and great way to drive self-improvement.  Looking at a win critically, figuring out ways to optimize what you did . . . figuring out why your opponent lost . . . again, a great way to continue to drive self-improvement.  One shouldn't derive self-worth from competition of course.  That's infantile.  Many times you gain more from a loss than a win.

[totoro]

I prefer to focus on optimization rather than competition. 

Optimization is about always striving to be better, more efficient, more refined.  It can be applied to any activity.  Different people in different circumstances may optimize in different ways.  we can learn and borrow from each other.  It doesn't have to be a "winner take all" kind of situation.

Ditto. INTJ characteristics I think?  Competition doesn't really make it work better for me.  I naturally focus on optimization and it is self-reinforcing.

[Jamesqf]

That is exactly the difference. Earning more money past a certain point doesn't make you happier, self-improvement does. Decades of research backs this up.

Either the research is wrong, or I haven't reached that certain point yet :-)

In summary: competition for the sake of increasing your income, i.e. work competition, achieves only so much.

But I'm not discussing competition (I'm not at all competitive myself), but the idea of working hard to accomplish whatever goals you've set for yourself.  Now if I happen to do that hard work in the context of a job, I get the additional reward of money (and also whatever satisfaction comes from knowing what I did was of value to other people).

[totoro]

Yes, I test INFJ.  INTJ only with work stuff.

[Elaine]

I feel like making a distinction between "competition" and "drive" would be helpful for this thread. To me, your competition is someone you are trying to beat- someone you need to nudge out of the way to get the money, the trophy, the ranking.

Drive is an internal desire to perfect something. Like martial arts, writing an epic novel, or for me dance. I am extremely driven with dance- I will continue a class through pain, fatigue, frustration, etc. I will try and try again after falling, after critique from a teacher, etc. But it's because it is something I personally want to achieve for myself, not something I am doing to determine my social pecking order or to derive an artificial sense of self-worth. 

[tooqk4u22]

Competition....Optimization.....Drive.....It is all really semantics. 

Whether you like it or not competition is life all the way down to the molecular or cell levels....white blood cells compete to keep us healthy.   Without competition inner drive doesn't exist, same goes with optimization - in some regard they are the inverse of competition by having more inner drive and focusing on optimization my need for X is less so therefore I need to compete less to get X.  This doesn't mean that all people are inclined to compete or able to for that matter, but it is a way of ALL life and evidenced through evolution (of course if your a creationist you will disagree).

We compete for resources, for money, for spouses, for living, and sometimes just for fun.   I sense there are two main issues in the thread - (1) competition for to get more than you need is pointless and (2) competition for fun is silly.  I think these to issues are being conflated with competition is not good, not fun, or not as good as cooperative ways.

[Elaine]

Well we're all using language to express our ideas here, so I'd say semantics are pretty important. I don't think it's true that inner drive can't exist without external competition. I think many artists describe their crafts as something they feel an internal need to do- something that comes specifically from within.

I also don't see anything wrong with competition for fun, or even competition in and of itself- it seems to be the snowball effect of competition for the sake of mindless acquisition that can be problematic. Just like purchasing goods is not problematic in itself, humans in our culture do need certain things like food and shelter- but mindless shopping for the sake of getting more and more is a problem.

[aclarridge]

We've been working very hard to teach him to enjoy playing the game for what it is, and not tying his self-worth up in something that he has very little control over.

All sports and most games allow the player a huge amount of control over the win/lose outcome. So when you develop your skills and compete to win, it can provide a much different type of enjoyment (which to me, feels great) than simply participating. If your son wants that feeling, I would think you wouldn't want to deny it to him. That said, it's not healthy if he ties up his self-worth in competitive results.

[FunkyStickman]

We've been working very hard to teach him to enjoy playing the game for what it is, and not tying his self-worth up in something that he has very little control over.

All sports and most games allow the player a huge amount of control over the win/lose outcome. So when you develop your skills and compete to win, it can provide a much different type of enjoyment (which to me, feels great) than simply participating. If your son wants that feeling, I would think you wouldn't want to deny it to him. That said, it's not healthy if he ties up his self-worth in competitive results.

I was referring mostly to chance-based card games and the like. He would fall apart if he lost at a game of UNO, which is almost entirely chance.

[Insanity]

We've been working very hard to teach him to enjoy playing the game for what it is, and not tying his self-worth up in something that he has very little control over.

All sports and most games allow the player a huge amount of control over the win/lose outcome. So when you develop your skills and compete to win, it can provide a much different type of enjoyment (which to me, feels great) than simply participating. If your son wants that feeling, I would think you wouldn't want to deny it to him. That said, it's not healthy if he ties up his self-worth in competitive results.

I'm trying to figure out which games provide people with a huge amount of control -- or what the definition of huge is?

[GuitarStv]

We've been working very hard to teach him to enjoy playing the game for what it is, and not tying his self-worth up in something that he has very little control over.

All sports and most games allow the player a huge amount of control over the win/lose outcome. So when you develop your skills and compete to win, it can provide a much different type of enjoyment (which to me, feels great) than simply participating. If your son wants that feeling, I would think you wouldn't want to deny it to him. That said, it's not healthy if he ties up his self-worth in competitive results.

I'm trying to figure out which games provide people with a huge amount of control -- or what the definition of huge is?

Control is based on the amount of randomness . . . games of chance inherently involve less control than games without chance or with less chance.

Huge amount of control:
- Chess
- Checkers
- Pictionary

Moderate amount of control:
- Risk
- Monopole
- Scrabble

Minimal amount of control:
- Crazy 8s
- Uno

[aclarridge]

We've been working very hard to teach him to enjoy playing the game for what it is, and not tying his self-worth up in something that he has very little control over.

All sports and most games allow the player a huge amount of control over the win/lose outcome. So when you develop your skills and compete to win, it can provide a much different type of enjoyment (which to me, feels great) than simply participating. If your son wants that feeling, I would think you wouldn't want to deny it to him. That said, it's not healthy if he ties up his self-worth in competitive results.

I'm trying to figure out which games provide people with a huge amount of control -- or what the definition of huge is?

Control is based on the amount of randomness . . . games of chance inherently involve less control than games without chance or with less chance.

Huge amount of control:
- Chess
- Checkers
- Pictionary

Moderate amount of control:
- Risk
- Monopole
- Scrabble

Minimal amount of control:
- Crazy 8s
- Uno

And most team sports - varying amount of control but some still huge (say, basketball), any individual sport - huge amount of control.

[Insanity]

And most team sports - varying amount of control but some still huge (say, basketball), any individual sport - huge amount of control.

I've always thought that when the competition is near equal, the level of control in any game is given to that the player who goes first.  That's when you look at chess, checkers, and even poker (which is more of a game of chance than any others - but a skilled player can bluff well).  But when it comes to team sport, there is zero control on any given player. 

[Albert]

I've always thought that when the competition is near equal, the level of control in any game is given to that the player who goes first.  That's when you look at chess, checkers, and even poker (which is more of a game of chance than any others - but a skilled player can bluff well).

Slight advantage to the player with white pieces in chess and checkers, but not the decisive one. It has been proven mathematically that checkers end with a draw if both players play perfectly. Probably the same with chess, albeit we'll have to wait some more years till computers are powerful enough to calculate that as well.