(a little) competition is healthy

[Violet]

It starts early on in the family between siblings, then you go to school and teachers start calculating medians and percentiles (e.g. 80% did better than you, nice to know). Before you get a job, you must conquer your competitors. You get the job, competitors are still there. You want a partner, competitors. You get the partner, competitors are still there.

Our economies have shifted from protectionist, privatised to globalised because it's said competition is healthy for prices (they go down) and in turn for end-users.

Competition is everywhere and you will find it is encouraged but it is competition a good thing and if not, what's the alternative?

I know one example, to do with education. There are some elementary schools (in Belgium) that don't work with grades (not numbers, not letters). They work with smilies and text and the text is personalised, based on the achievements of that one kid. Of course in the end, a finish line must be met, but the child suffers less from constant comparison with others and positioning on some scale of intelligence.

[christian]

Competition is part of nature. To try to eliminate it would be to conspire against nature, this can only fail.

How about learning how to engage in competition in a humane way? I think that's the whole trick…

[Wind]

I would rather like to cooperate than compete.

[Shezbeth]

Competition is inevitable.

In preferring/desiring cooperation over competition, one is in competition with those who desire/prefer competition over cooperation. Every chess game has its opponent.

[christian]

I would rather like to cooperate than compete.

Looking at society realistically, to some extent we always have subjective goals. As soon as there are conflicting goals, there is competition. It cannot be avoided and should thus be faced, I think.

Cooperation cannot fully substitute competition, but how about integrating cooperation into the reality of competition?

By the way, "compete" derives from Latin "competere" which means meet, coincide and agree. Literally "com-petere" means strive together or seek together.

[Skyhaven]

Competition is present in nature when there is scarcity. We humans are perfectly capable of tackling that problem for everyone if we cooperate. So competition is not needed, it only makes things worse, instead it allows for greed, and inequality.

The problem is that the competition based paradigm is too ingrained to just step away from it, but it will happen in time, not by choice however but because of dire necessity.

[Skyhaven]

By the way, "compete" derives from Latin "competere" which means meet, coincide and agree. Literally "com-petere" means strive together or seek together.

This is not what is means today. Today it entails opposing individuals, or groups of individuals.

[christian]

Competition is present in nature when there is scarcity. We humans are perfectly capable of tackling that problem for everyone if we cooperate.

What about that particular house by the sea? Or that particular woman? That original painting of Picasso? Scarcity. It's natural. It breeds competition. That's also natural. You cannot avoid it. The only realistic solution is to integrate cooperation into competition as much as possible.


So competition is not needed, it only makes things worse, instead it allows for greed, and inequality.

Both equality and inequality are natural. Equality as in everybody comes from the same source and has the same inherent rights, and inequal as in we all are different individuals with different characteristics and so on. Gotta appreciate both, the equal and the inequal.

Greed can always arise out of the depth of consciousness. Even in a perfectly cooperative society, suddenly the demon of greed could arise within any individual. I think it's helpful to face that (greed) directly, not by targeting competition to be safe from experiencing greed. You can be greedy and express that desire cooperatively, then you become a greedy cooperative.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

;)


The pose traces back to classical times — Aeschines, founder of a rhetoric school, suggested that speaking with an arm outside one's toga was bad manners

Exodus 4:6
And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.
"But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Jacques-Louis_David_-_The_Emperor_Napoleon_in_His_Study_at_the_Tuileries_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg/130px-Jacques-Louis_David_-_The_Emperor_Napoleon_in_His_Study_at_the_Tuileries_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg



it is the irony of our times that we call it "the age of reason", when in fact we are incapable of reason,
much less hearkening to it

;(

everyone wants to talk with their hands, i.e. tyrannize others.
the greeks had a way of communicating at one time,
that was courteous and civil :ear:

[Wind]

it is the irony of our times that we call it "the age of reason", when in fact we are incapable of reason

It's actually an age of decadence (Kali Yuga (http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DMisraB6.php)), a time when madness runs the world and greed has poisoned the souls of men. The time just before the golden age (http://www.astrogeographia.org/the_stars/aquarian_age_new_age/), where enlightenment guides the world instead of this collective insanity. We are getting there, slowly but surely. Who knows, maybe there will be some kind of a leap in the near future, we could use that in this time of peril. Interestingly all of these things were foreseen a long time ago. Maybe in the end it's just one cosmic play playing itself out!

http://oi60.tinypic.com/9tki0g.jpg

Whoops, did I mumble too much again? :tape2:

[Project_Buggy_Beach]

Competition is hard wired into Nature, who is allowed to breed, those who will most likely survive to further the species...

[Baby Steps]

In the competition to survive in hunter gatherer societies, those tribe groups that are good at cooperation survive best

Current thinking about child development is that play is the best way of learning for the first 7 years. I see that they play, but the concept of who wins or who is best has to be introduced by adults, it is alien to the kids!

Competition for resources in a free market is the worst way to allocate resources, except for all the others

[Violet]

I saw the argument of nature pass by a few times. At the same time as humans we also accept behaviour that goes against our nature. Furthermore, we're adapting nature to our own modern needs such that nature itself is having a hard time to survive.

In the title I added 'a little' to indicate a scale. For "breeding" matters I think yes, we can't all cooperate. It exists (for example in certain indiginous tribes), but I'm not sure if it also leads to a succesful, long-term progyny, on a wider scale.

It seems there are areas where we are more ready to accept competition than others.

How do we deal with this competition when it forcefully faces us and we lean more towards cooperation? In the beginning of my carreer, of course I knew there was competition on the workfloor but I chose for the cooperative model which - ironically - was also promoted at the workplace. I'll say nothing new with: theory often deviates from reality, and what happened is, if you don't take up that fight, it doesn't mean the fight is over. It just continues, behind your back. And it can get you into trouble. For me the most confusing part is when competitive people pretend they bought into your cooperative model, just to divert your attention. That is very predatory. And it forces you to do something. It's just that, I don't want to be like that (too).

And it's a bit of a similar thing as in that history thread and video (I think it's still around in the new post list) with the puppets, and history popping up and being denied. See if I can find it.

Post-update: There (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79998-Do-we-really-recognize-individual-and-collective-history)'t is.

[araucaria]

Competition is very similar to pedagogy. A tennis player will give of their best, or even better, when playing against someone playing slightly more proficient, someone who has answers to their questions and asks some questions of their own. The competitive instinct is what stretches them to raise their game and improve, even though the immediate outcome may be defeat. This is exactly how a good teacher will bring the best out of his students, taking them in small steps through everything he can give, until they reach the stage that they need to move on. In both areas, there is a downside to this competitive edge: when it is used as a weapon at others’ expense. This is what happens when you come up against the very best at whatever they do. There comes a stage when you reach the top and there seems to be ultimately nowhere further to go – except that the top itself is a moving target. Those at the top understand that there is always room for improvement; it is the helpless spectator side in the rest of us that distorts the otherwise healthy process of striving upwards.

Why is it a healthy process? Simply because we know that we are not where we want to be, and whenever we progress we appreciate that the effort was worth making. A positive synonym for competition is growth. When we are satisfied enough to stop growing we discover that we start regressing: in this dynamic universe there is no standing still. The illusion of a crowning moment of ultimate achievement is actually the cause of your undoing. This is the message at the end of The Lord of the Rings where the actual final clutching of the coveted ring sends both Gollum and the ring toppling into the abyss. There is no ultimate prize, just what people in business call milestones.

Growth is a useful way of envisaging everything that is being discussed on this forum. The problem of growth is when things become outgrown. If your house is too small for your young family, you can move to a bigger place, or you can find space in the attic or garage to build extra space. Humanity is at a stage where perhaps it cannot yet afford to move elsewhere, off-planet (or maybe it can), but where it is discovering that it has been restricted by a few to a tiny corner of what turns out to be a fairly large mansion. More and more rooms are being unlocked and disclosed, for the good of all. This is the exact opposite of that growth or expansion at others’ expense that Hitler called Lebensraum.

[Skyhaven]

Competition is present in nature when there is scarcity. We humans are perfectly capable of tackling that problem for everyone if we cooperate.

What about that particular house by the sea? Or that particular woman? That original painting of Picasso? Scarcity. It's natural. It breeds competition. That's also natural. You cannot avoid it. The only realistic solution is to integrate cooperation into competition as much as possible.


So competition is not needed, it only makes things worse, instead it allows for greed, and inequality.

Both equality and inequality are natural. Equality as in everybody comes from the same source and has the same inherent rights, and inequal as in we all are different individuals with different characteristics and so on. Gotta appreciate both, the equal and the inequal.

Greed can always arise out of the depth of consciousness. Even in a perfectly cooperative society, suddenly the demon of greed could arise within any individual. I think it's helpful to face that (greed) directly, not by targeting competition to be safe from experiencing greed. You can be greedy and express that desire cooperatively, then you become a greedy cooperative.

I agree. Competition appears in nature everywhere, and it can't be avoided on a fundamental level. But to put things in perspective, in response to the OP:

We need to shift the main focus from competing on a national and individual level to a global cooperative level. The way we use competition now, at a national and individual level, just isn't healthy for the world, and therefore for all of us.

[christian]

Current thinking about child development is that play is the best way of learning for the first 7 years. I see that they play, but the concept of who wins or who is best has to be introduced by adults, it is alien to the kids!

Have you ever seen toddlers competing for a toy? They often find it very important who wins it. It seems they're more or just as competitive as many adults in that regard.

[Mike]

I find those that don't favor competition are those who are scared of it. there are exceptions to every rule but I find this to be true most times. show me one brilliant businessman who frowns upon competition; show me one world class athlete who does same. even artists and musicians and actors etc are competitive - don't let them fool you! they all want to be considered the best at what they do.

I think most would admit that the thrill of winning - in anything - can be intoxicating. and fun! and lessons can be learnt from losing. so competition can be productive. it pushes us to our limits.
its a natural human instinct to want to win. no doubt, there is a way to win and a way to lose - most people don't need to have this explained to them. common sense dictates this.

[Violet]

That's the problem, it's ambiguous. I for instance can't fully accept or reject competition. There's always that line between ok and not ok.

It's still somewhat cute when toddlers fight over a toy, but it's stops when they turn into presidents fighting over land.

There was a time when I saw other artists as competition but something has changed along the way. They've become inspirational instead. When I saw them as competition, I was not so much interested in how they worked or what their deeper intentions were. There was just a superficial perception of a competitor and his/her competitive products. And only when I started considering them as co-creators of a bigger artwork did I spend more and sincere time looking at what they did, why and what they were trying to say. It's made me richer, I feel that I can do more than I thought I could.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Not much fun playing with some one that isn't trying to win. Matching skills will always breed competition. Healthy competition usually involves unbiased judges or referees that have no vested interest in the outcome.

In business this has translated into all sorts of unhealthy activities to tilt the balance in their favor. Anything from misleading advertising to lobbying government for preferential treatment to murdering the competition or otherwise gaining unfair market control.

Competition is natural to a point, perhaps, but unrestrained, it can lead to many of the problems we see in today's world.

Like Wind, I prefer co-operation. Except even co-operates can compete against each other. This I suppose is the natural evolution of nationhood from small towns and city states. If so, could a one world government be seen as the next natural step?

And then competition would have to find new competitors, out there, in the depths of space...and then form new alliances and co-operatives and find larger conglomerates to compete against and...