First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Competition = useless?
23684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13
Removed this because it was rash.
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13
Competition is motivation to improve. It's often much harder to motivate yourself than to have someone or an external force motivate you. Competition isn't really bad until it reaches the point of obsession and people get way too emotionally invested in it. Still, it does force people to get better at what they do.

If you are satisfied were you are, there is little to no motivation to improve. Dissatisfaction is needed to achieve that, and competition with others is one of the only ways to bring that about. It's comparatively rare for people to improve just for improvement's sake. The drive has to come from somewhere, depending on the activity.

If you are one of these rarities, good for you. But it sure is useful for most other people who aren't like you.
1181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/11/13
I recently read a book titled "The Science of Competition," would highly recommend it!

There are two types of competition mentioned--single competition, and endless competition. They're very different scenarios.

Single competition is when you prepare for one event. There is a definite outcome--you win, or you lose. Then it's over, and you go looking for the next one I suppose. Test-taking, for example--you study up (maybe pull an all-nighter), and you take the exam. After the exam, you feel pretty fatigued and just want to "not study" for a while...until the next exam rolls around.

Endless competition is when there is no definite way to determine a winner and a loser. You just keep competing day by day. For example, trying to lose weight and become more healthy. You can't just exercise for one day and call it quits. Maintaining health requires the discipline of constantly getting up off of the couch and moving around--something that doesn't come naturally to people like me.

I don't think competition necessarily can be classified as "good" or "bad." It's there, whether or not I enjoy it.
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

Morbidhanson wrote:

Competition is motivation to improve. It's often much harder to motivate yourself than to have someone or an external force motivate you. Competition isn't really bad until it reaches the point of obsession and people get way too emotionally invested in it. Still, it does force people to get better at what they do.

If you are satisfied were you are, there is little to no motivation to improve. Dissatisfaction is needed to achieve that, and competition with others is one of the only ways to bring that about. It's comparatively rare for people to improve just for improvement's sake. The drive has to come from somewhere, depending on the activity.

If you are one of these rarities, good for you. But it sure is useful for most other people who aren't like you.


I don't see how someone could be compelled to get better at something because someone's challenging them to when everyone has a different idea of what perfection is, ergo, you can never fully live up to someone else's expectations.Take competitive women, for example - it would be anti-feministic to say that a girl has to be hotter than the girl next to her, and I'm sorry but whether you try to or not, someone will ALWAYS be better than you. This is why I suggest that people be the best that they can be and don't care about what others are doing. This other person I was debating with told me I called anyone who lost the competition a loser. On the contrary - I am not anti-equality. I don't challenge people to do things they can't do. I suggest that they simply be the best person they can be.

If something is impossible to achieve even when you give it 100% of your all, I don't think there's a point in doing it. If I set a goal for MYSELF, however, and live up to my own standards, I know I'll have done the very best. And I don't, again, believe you have to be trying to beat other people to live up to your standards.
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13
I don't have to like something to compete for it. It's instinct. It's in my bones. lol Okay i'm exaggerating but there really is no any other person, not even yourself in competition. When you feel it's a competition, your eyes see nothing but the price and you don't even know how it got you. Half the time, once you got what it is, you don't even care for it. I think OP realized it's bogus and thinks perhaps it stems from influence. Yes, you set yourself up.
23684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

-tion wrote:

I don't have to like something to compete for it. It's instinct. It's in my bones. lol Okay i'm exaggerating but there really is no any other person, not even yourself in competition. When you feel it's a competition, your eyes see nothing but the price and you don't even know how it got you. Half the time, once you got what it is, you don't even care for it. I think OP realised it's bogus and thinks perhaps it stems from influence.


but doesn't that just apply to certain types of competition? All competition doesn't have to have a prize. That's what I was trying to say, that not all competition has to have this X vs Y case where X or Y wins and the latter doesn't receive this form or "prize." My main argument is that her claim is way too extreme and that her points only apply to certain, very specific types and scenarios of competition.

because she pretty much got lost in her own words and forgot what my main question really even was:

"Are you talking about ALL competition?

because if so, I disagree 100%."

and I still do stand by my disagreement because I do not feel that every single form of competition is useless. But, I do see her and your point and do agree to an extent.
Posted 9/11/13

Gyava wrote:


but doesn't that just apply to certain types of competition? All competition doesn't have to have a prize. That's what I was trying to say, that not all competition has to have this X vs Y case where X or Y wins and the latter doesn't receive this form or "prize." My main argument is that her claim is way too extreme and that her points only apply to certain, very specific types and scenarios of competition.


Thee is always a price.
23684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/11/13

-tion wrote:


Gyava wrote:


but doesn't that just apply to certain types of competition? All competition doesn't have to have a prize. That's what I was trying to say, that not all competition has to have this X vs Y case where X or Y wins and the latter doesn't receive this form or "prize." My main argument is that her claim is way too extreme and that her points only apply to certain, very specific types and scenarios of competition.


Thee is always a price.


Then if there is a price and all forms of competition are useless, what happens when key competition such as business are destroyed? Is competition still bogus then? What is the prize of not having competition there?
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

Gyava wrote:


-tion wrote:


Gyava wrote:


but doesn't that just apply to certain types of competition? All competition doesn't have to have a prize. That's what I was trying to say, that not all competition has to have this X vs Y case where X or Y wins and the latter doesn't receive this form or "prize." My main argument is that her claim is way too extreme and that her points only apply to certain, very specific types and scenarios of competition.


Thee is always a price.


Then if there is a price and all forms of competition are useless, what happens when key competition such as business are destroyed? Is competition still bogus then? What is the prize of not having competition there?


It's not bogus in the sense you took my wording, it's not something you can control once you set up to understand in your mind that it's happening. If you make mistakes that will shake down your company because of the threat you feel once in it then that's on you. Competition is not good or bad, it's the trouble the thrill gets you that's bad for you or others. Once you gamble with shit, you are no longer really competing.
23684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about since I'm curious and I don't fully understand. Can you give me an example of this sense of competition in a real world example? and I agree with your second sentence.
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

Gyava wrote:


I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about since I'm curious and I don't fully understand. Can you give me an example of this sense of competition in a real world example? and I agree with your second sentence.



Competing is like an intervention, it can be useful or useless. I'm not good with detail so I can't think of an an example. I do know were you are coming from but maybe you should give me an example.
23684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

-tion wrote:


Gyava wrote:


I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about since I'm curious and I don't fully understand. Can you give me an example of this sense of competition in a real world example? and I agree with your second sentence.



Competing is like an intervention, it can be useful or useless. I'm not good with detail so I can't think of an an example. I do know were you are coming from but maybe you should give me an example.


I just feel like what you both are saying is a very deep concept that I can't picture.

Basically, I am looking at things in the concrete way. When I asked OP if she was addressing all forms of competition, I immediately countered in my head "wrong, because there are forms of competition such as business and education that are not useless at all".. However, I don't think OP is trying to talk about it in that sense and that turned into a very confusing debate that ended not so well. This is just a habit that I picked up in debate, I only look at key points and main ideas and then attempt to argue them. That's my example.

However, when I tried to understand what she was trying to argue, I at least tried to emphasize that there are useful forms of competition and useless ones. That's all I was trying to get to, but I think OP had a whole different point of view than I did. I have a feeling that both of you are very right, it's just that it's too abstract for me to comprehend at the moment.
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13
Survival of the fittest, anyone? even animals compete, they compete for their pray, territory, leadership and even for mating.


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

This is why I suggest that people be the best that they can be and don't care about what others are doing. This other person I was debating with told me I called anyone who lost the competition a loser. On the contrary - I am not anti-equality. I don't challenge people to do things they can't do. I suggest that they simply be the best person they can be.


Some people don't know or are not aware yet of the things they can do if they never take challenges so I don't agree with you about not challenging people to do things YOU think "they can't do". How can you bring out the best of you if you don't challenge yourself? are you gonna be a mediocre all your life? sometimes you have to get out of your comfort zone to be the best person you can be (general "you") and you can realize this when you win over something, either winning over your current state of life, winning over the people who looked down on you or winning over the people you were competing with. Everything is about a competition (but no one wins over death, unfortunately) and this is why i don't think competition=useless because it brings out the best of us, in some cases.

Posted 9/11/13

Gyava wrote:

I just feel like what you both are saying is a very deep concept that I can't picture.

Basically, I am looking at things in the concrete way. When I asked OP if she was addressing all forms of competition, I immediately countered in my head "wrong, because there are forms of competition such as business and education that are not useless at all".. However, I don't think OP is trying to talk about it in that sense and that turned into a very confusing debate that ended not so well. This is just a habit that I picked up in debate, I only look at key points and main ideas and then attempt to argue them. That's my example.

However, when I tried to understand what she was trying to argue, I at least tried to emphasize that there are useful forms of competition and useless ones. That's all I was trying to get to, but I think OP had a whole different point of view than I did. I have a feeling that both of you are very right, it's just that it's too abstract for me to comprehend at the moment.


Haha are you being sarcastic? I'm on you side not against you. Of course, I probably went on a tangent somewhere and I'm sorry.
10926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / United States
Offline
Posted 9/11/13
A small amount of competition is fine, as long as it's kept within reason, However I know a good few people who take it to far and it ends up usually hurting someone or another ヽ(ー_ー )ノ
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.