First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Competition = useless?
27268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:


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.


Not all competition is about achieving perfection. Perfection is not possible, anyway. It is about being better than at something than others so that you might gain an advantage. It's built into your bones to compete. People compete to be attractive because the root of it is mate-seeking. The best-looking, strongest, fastest, most adaptable ones are the ones that survive in the animal world. Our adaptability has changed the rules a bit, but we are still the same in our core.

Being the best person you can be needs motivation. The term 'best' can't be used if you have nothing to compare what you're describing with it to. Being the best means being better than someone else. You need to be dissatisfied with who you are in order to improve. You compete with yourself and you compete with others. It's not about simply beating other people, or there would be no point in competing. It is about reaping the benefits of beating other people or improving yourself. You gain an advantage or you gain some sort of reward. You gain the bragging rights, you get the mate, you gain the self-confidence, you prove to others that you are worthy, you make yourself stronger, you get the job and you put food in your stomach. Being competitive comes naturally, that nature has just been dulled by the relatively sheltered lives we now lead but it is still there and just manifests in different ways.


Being the best person you can be does not = being better than someone else - especially considering the fact that not all people are created the same. If everyone is different, how could they possibly attempt to one-up each other?

You do not compete with yourself. To compete means to strive against someone else or several others to attain a goal.



Yes, it does. The word 'best' in and of itself demands some kind of comparison. You compare yourself to others and you compare yourself to the person you once were. People are still similar enough to compete in sports, games, wooing a mate, getting jobs, etc. Those differences are there to give you the tools to survive. If someone was the fastest and all that people could do was run, then that person gets all the goods and you do not. Fortunately, you have a large variety of things you can develop and use to overcome that fast person or that strong person or that good-looking person.


The fact that running isn't all people can do is in part what ought to enable them NOT to compete. In the end, what I'm saying is, I don't see any need to set my goals towards beating you or anyone else. I strive to do my personal best because, again, then I will be living up to my full potential. And if living up to your full potential means doing something better than anyone in the world (depending on your definition of better,) I think that's a shame.

It isn't the definition of competing. You can look it up yourself, and if you find something different, so be it.

You APPEAR to think that being strong, good-looking, etc. is what makes a person successful. With a what is in my opinion very limited view of what people can be, I can see why you might think everyone needs to compete. But I think there's good in everyone who does their best regardless of whether that means they're stronger, prettier, etc. than me or not - again, as long as they are doing their best. Unfortunately, not everyone can be number one. So what does that make those who AREN'T? Are they just crass? From what I've gathered, that's what you seem to think.


You believe people shouldn't be able to compete, but the fact remains that, despite their differences, they are able to find enough in common to compete, have done so for thousands of years, and will continue to do so. Competition has shaped our environment and our lives. Believing it to be of no use does not change the fact that it has, in fact, had a tremendous impact on everything around us as well as on us. That alone is enough to prove that it is not without purpose, whether you believe that this is the ideal way the world should be or not. Even if it did not apply to you, it applies to the rest of the world and, thus, is not without purpose.

It is an ugly truth, but a truth nonetheless. I do not like it any more than you do, but my dislike of it does not allow me to pass it off as 'useless' nor does it allow me to ignore the effects that competition has on everything. People, like the animals they are, who are at the bottom of the chain who are unable to beat anybody else at anything essential that is necessary to maintaining their livelihood will remain at the bottom unless they have luck on their side. That is not to say that they have no value. I'd like to believe that lives are worth something. But the truth is that those who are unable to compete or always lose do not survive for long without help. The strong snuff out the weak and nobody cares.

The ability to compete and win does necessarily make you successful, although it increases your likelihood of being successful. Although many would say that not being poor and having a good lifestyle is part of it. To get that, you have to beat people at securing jobs, you have to compete with your coworkers for that raise and you have to have better skills than some other people and greater diligence than others. I believe it really depends on whether or not you believe that you are successful. If you win at everything and find no satisfaction in what you do, something's wrong. And each person has their own ideas about what constitutes success, or is attempting to form such an idea.
7529 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Crimson Mage Village
Offline
Posted 9/15/13 , edited 9/15/13

Gyava wrote:

I still don't understand why you need other people to beat you to understand how YOU can do better. What's wrong with living up to your own personal standards whether that means being better than other people at this or that or not?




I doubt you're still here, but think of it this way: without competition, there would be no reason to improve yourself. Why do people live up to their own personal standards? Their pride. It is very possible that a person can instead of reaching a certain goal themselves, get someone else to do it for them. And for what? Nothing. Like the person you were arguing with said, without competition, the economy would not grow, because there is no need for people to get above others, therefore no reason to hire people to actually work, and then either the economy crashes, or we revert to some messed-up form of communism. How hard is it to understand that?
Also, if there was no competition, humans would have no pride, therefore no drive to self improve. Let's say a man works at a job (assuming there would still be an economy) as a fisherman. Not just any fisherman, but one of two fisherman that provides all the seafood of a port city. The sea is filled to the brim with fish, but here's the catch- without competition with the other fisherman, this one man can just do a half-assed job and catch 1, maybe 2 fish to feed just himself and family. No competition means no carrot or stick for this man, and he's free to be as lazy as he wanted. In that case, why even work at all (hence, the whole economy thing)? Why even bother doing anything? If there is no competition, then everyone is pretty much at the same level, meaning they are just about identical in standing and condition. In that case, how are we any different from lowly single-celled organisms?
We humans have advanced this far because of competition. In fact, it is possible to think of it as an adaption. Because each human is different from another, and possesses the function called emotion, there is an urge to highlight that difference via competition. Why did humans begin using tools? Yes, survival did play a big role in this, but it was also influenced by competition. "Our living standards suck." To cushion their poor situation, humans will take that statement and change it to "My living standards suck, but at least that guy has it worse than me." to lift their spirits. Well, you can't be all bark and no bite, otherwise you'll be excluded from the group, so naturally, that human had to create a situation where "My living standards are better than yours"- by inventing a tool to gather more food.
Okay, so one person has it better than another. Well, now social stratification has been invented. Of course, it's human nature to long for what you don't have. When a person sees another with more than they have themselves, they begin to think, "maybe I have it bad". That's where your pride kicks in. "If he can get that much food, it means he is better than me. But I'm way better than him!" So what would you do? Find a way to bring your own living standards above the inventor of the spear's. Invent the bow and arrow.
Wow. Technology has just advanced by two tools because of competition. In reality, humanity would have been perfectly fine gathering food by hand without any tools. It's just because people competed for better chances of survival that these innovations have occurred.
I mentioned social stratification earlier. Do you see where that got us today? It's far from perfect, but is it really worse than everyone being equal? For example, what is the pillar of support for any country? It's government. How does government work? People will take it upon themselves to govern over their country. It is possible for this to happen while still maintaining equal class for all the citizens, but with the population skyrocketing in recent years- and the high probability that the decision will be forced to take a "majority rules" path due to the seemingly endless arguing from different viewpoints. Okay, so a decision has been made. Uh oh, what about the 47% of people who were overruled by the dominant 53%? They have been supressed, creating a difference in class- or, a situation where one group 'has proven themselves superior over another'- in other words, competition. And especially in America, where the government is really just one big competition, this is the only way to do things.
My last point is people's own pride. What is pride? The feeling of superiority over another (using this definition for the sake of this argument). Sound familiar? But wait- isn't pride a bad thing? Only when it's taken too far. In reality, pride is the reason people strive higher. Self improvement? That's just your pride showing. If there was no pride, why should you improve in the first place? Because people tell you to? So that you can do more things? Aren't those both a result of competition between others?
As most people know, people are always influenced by others. Even if it's just slightly, the presence of influence is there. So what are our own personal standards, but just lingerings of other's influences on you? "I want to become a doctor." Okay. What kind? "I want to be a pediatrician. Well, let's say you make this goal. Then you meet surgeon for only 2 minutes, but you become influenced by- let's say- their salary. Well, it's obvious that a surgeon takes more work than a pediatrician. You just changed your own self standards.
However, you are a B+ student, and only those with a 4.0 GPA or higher can become students. So you strive higher. Can you not say that you are competing with yourself to overcome your own limitations? Oh, but there's more- only the top 300 students with GPAs of 4.0 or higher are accepted. That means you'll have to compete with others for the spot to reach your own self standards. Even if you succeed, you'll have to compete with other surgeons to recieve patients in order to stay in business.
In the end, everything comes down to competition- whether you realize it or not. When you were arguing with that person over whether competition is good or bad, weren't you really competing with them to see whose viewpoint held more credibility? Weren't you trying to assert your own viewpoint over theirs, making it superior? Of course. And was it bad? No. In doing that, you have gotten at least 30 people to think a bit deeper about the everyday occurence known as "competition". Now, if only you yourself can realize this, then there will be at least 31 people who were changed by this topic.
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 9/15/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

For the record, I think it is. I agree with the aspect of doing something you love and being good at it - but I think there are ways to prove you are good at something other than beating other people as a result. If you're the best at what YOU do (in my opinion, everyone is the best at something even if that means simply being the best at being themselves,) there's no need to have anyone else validate it for you. It's as if you can't have faith in yourself unless everyone else has faith in you, too. It would be nice to have people respect you, as they should. But they're only "respecting" you if you do what they wanted you to, how they wanted you to do it.

I tend to cave under the pressure of competition and quit altogether, because I don't feel like trying to be better than anyone. I find that I do my best work when not feeling like I'm going to be compared to anyone else - when there are no expectations someone is pushing on me. And it's senseless to expect anyone to be more appreciative of who you are than yourself. Those judges ARE expecting things from you. People should be the best people they can be. That doesn't mean they are EVER going to be better than you at whatever it is they're trying to beat you at, nor should they HAVE to be. I believe competition teaches them otherwise.



the result of a generation of kids who werent allowed to keep score at little league games and gave everyone a trophy just for participating....
23688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/16/13 , edited 9/16/13

TripleBakaKimidori wrote:


Gyava wrote:

I still don't understand why you need other people to beat you to understand how YOU can do better. What's wrong with living up to your own personal standards whether that means being better than other people at this or that or not?




I doubt you're still here, but think of it this way: without competition, there would be no reason to improve yourself. Why do people live up to their own personal standards? Their pride. It is very possible that a person can instead of reaching a certain goal themselves, get someone else to do it for them. And for what? Nothing. Like the person you were arguing with said, without competition, the economy would not grow, because there is no need for people to get above others, therefore no reason to hire people to actually work, and then either the economy crashes, or we revert to some messed-up form of communism. How hard is it to understand that?
Also, if there was no competition, humans would have no pride, therefore no drive to self improve. Let's say a man works at a job (assuming there would still be an economy) as a fisherman. Not just any fisherman, but one of two fisherman that provides all the seafood of a port city. The sea is filled to the brim with fish, but here's the catch- without competition with the other fisherman, this one man can just do a half-assed job and catch 1, maybe 2 fish to feed just himself and family. No competition means no carrot or stick for this man, and he's free to be as lazy as he wanted. In that case, why even work at all (hence, the whole economy thing)? Why even bother doing anything? If there is no competition, then everyone is pretty much at the same level, meaning they are just about identical in standing and condition. In that case, how are we any different from lowly single-celled organisms?
We humans have advanced this far because of competition. In fact, it is possible to think of it as an adaption. Because each human is different from another, and possesses the function called emotion, there is an urge to highlight that difference via competition. Why did humans begin using tools? Yes, survival did play a big role in this, but it was also influenced by competition. "Our living standards suck." To cushion their poor situation, humans will take that statement and change it to "My living standards suck, but at least that guy has it worse than me." to lift their spirits. Well, you can't be all bark and no bite, otherwise you'll be excluded from the group, so naturally, that human had to create a situation where "My living standards are better than yours"- by inventing a tool to gather more food.
Okay, so one person has it better than another. Well, now social stratification has been invented. Of course, it's human nature to long for what you don't have. When a person sees another with more than they have themselves, they begin to think, "maybe I have it bad". That's where your pride kicks in. "If he can get that much food, it means he is better than me. But I'm way better than him!" So what would you do? Find a way to bring your own living standards above the inventor of the spear's. Invent the bow and arrow.
Wow. Technology has just advanced by two tools because of competition. In reality, humanity would have been perfectly fine gathering food by hand without any tools. It's just because people competed for better chances of survival that these innovations have occurred.
I mentioned social stratification earlier. Do you see where that got us today? It's far from perfect, but is it really worse than everyone being equal? For example, what is the pillar of support for any country? It's government. How does government work? People will take it upon themselves to govern over their country. It is possible for this to happen while still maintaining equal class for all the citizens, but with the population skyrocketing in recent years- and the high probability that the decision will be forced to take a "majority rules" path due to the seemingly endless arguing from different viewpoints. Okay, so a decision has been made. Uh oh, what about the 47% of people who were overruled by the dominant 53%? They have been supressed, creating a difference in class- or, a situation where one group 'has proven themselves superior over another'- in other words, competition. And especially in America, where the government is really just one big competition, this is the only way to do things.
My last point is people's own pride. What is pride? The feeling of superiority over another (using this definition for the sake of this argument). Sound familiar? But wait- isn't pride a bad thing? Only when it's taken too far. In reality, pride is the reason people strive higher. Self improvement? That's just your pride showing. If there was no pride, why should you improve in the first place? Because people tell you to? So that you can do more things? Aren't those both a result of competition between others?
As most people know, people are always influenced by others. Even if it's just slightly, the presence of influence is there. So what are our own personal standards, but just lingerings of other's influences on you? "I want to become a doctor." Okay. What kind? "I want to be a pediatrician. Well, let's say you make this goal. Then you meet surgeon for only 2 minutes, but you become influenced by- let's say- their salary. Well, it's obvious that a surgeon takes more work than a pediatrician. You just changed your own self standards.
However, you are a B+ student, and only those with a 4.0 GPA or higher can become students. So you strive higher. Can you not say that you are competing with yourself to overcome your own limitations? Oh, but there's more- only the top 300 students with GPAs of 4.0 or higher are accepted. That means you'll have to compete with others for the spot to reach your own self standards. Even if you succeed, you'll have to compete with other surgeons to recieve patients in order to stay in business.
In the end, everything comes down to competition- whether you realize it or not. When you were arguing with that person over whether competition is good or bad, weren't you really competing with them to see whose viewpoint held more credibility? Weren't you trying to assert your own viewpoint over theirs, making it superior? Of course. And was it bad? No. In doing that, you have gotten at least 30 people to think a bit deeper about the everyday occurence known as "competition". Now, if only you yourself can realize this, then there will be at least 31 people who were changed by this topic.


Just for the record, she wrote that, not me. :P

and yeah, I brought up the same points, but she doesn't understand and doesn't wish to understand anyway so there's no point in trying to explain anything to her.

The only thing that resulted from this thread really was her getting mad and complaining to her other CR friend lolz

7529 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Crimson Mage Village
Offline
Posted 9/16/13 , edited 9/16/13
Ehehe....
Posted 9/16/13 , edited 9/16/13
I've decided OP has raised some good questions, I peiously did not read the content but only the thread title. The questions about respect and something else I forgot lol

It's an opportunity to share the best relevant quotes from Shakesphere

1. Expectation is the root of all heartache/evil

2. Nothing is so common as the desire to be remarkable

Competition can actually be a hindrance to growth.

----

This might just be nonsense but say we think from the perspective of companies. Benchmarks are set sometimes based of "better" or "standard". Let's forget that the business is it's own entity which is irrelevant to this. The people within the control system, the employee (not including managers and upwads) have their own standards and most of the times it's not about the competition or standards they have to surpass. It's personal targets within other targets that define their awareness of their potential...imo.

----
This 'competition = Useless' and the 'Value' threads should merge lol



To compete and survive is to end our own dissatisfaction or begin your dissatisfaction. Depends on how far. Is what you're saying?
23688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 9/16/13

-tion wrote:
This 'competition = Useless' and the 'Value' threads should merge lol


I agree, but then again, I was simply defending that not all competition is useless, that's all.

Competition can indeed be a "hindrance to growth." ^^
Posted 9/16/13 , edited 9/16/13
If you want to look at it from a utilitarian perspective, competition plays a role in our survival instinct. Example: The better you look the higher the chance you have of attracting a partner.

In depth, however, competition is meaningless because life is meaningless. You live, you die, trollolol. That's it. And the best you can do, since your survival instinct prevents you from killing yourself, is to try to do whatever makes you feel good until the day death is unavoidable.
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 9/16/13
i see far too many kids that only aspire to be average

i do my best work when theres no expectation to be better than mediocre also
i mean if theres no expectation to be anything other than mediocre and i turn in just barely mediocre, then im fantastic!
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 9/16/13 , edited 9/16/13
if apple and microsoft werent competing for your business then there would be no ipad.
if people werent competing to get dates, then there would be no fashion trends, no abercrombie or aero.
if pro baseball players werent competing for top pay then there would be no baseball. it would be a bunch of fat retards standing around on the field throwing a ball around.

why exert yourself if theres no reward for first place?
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 9/16/13

Gyava wrote:

I still don't understand why you need other people to beat you to understand how YOU can do better. What's wrong with living up to your own personal standards whether that means being better than other people at this or that or not?




if your desire is to suck at chess, then by all means, never play against anyone.
if you desire to learn and improve yourself then compete against people and learn from your mistakes as much as their victories

in fact, i cant think of a single thing where you can learn from your mistakes and improve yourself by being beaten by someone better than you
Posted 9/17/13

Gyava wrote:

Competition can indeed be a "hindrance to growth." ^^


Yep ^^. It's about your mentality. If you think something is bad for you then it will be bad for you.
Bavalt 
22047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 9/18/13
I'm generally more in line with the OP's thinking myself, but I realize that people who balk at competition are the minority. I hate to compete with people, as I hate hierarchy, animosity, tension in general, and all the other unpleasant things that it brings about. I'm the type who doesn't care about winning, but hates to lose. In my ideal world, everything is a draw. I self-motivate easily when it comes to what I want to do, and most of my talent comes from research, exchange of ideas, and my own ability to self-critique. Competition does nothing for me: if I lose, I get discouraged, and if I win, I feel guilty for discouraging others. The fact is that it's pretty easy to tell what your failings are from the results of your work, and from a purely practical perspective, there's nothing you could learn from competition that you couldn't learn from simply getting input from someone who's good at what you're good at.

With all that said, though, I understand that my own unwillingness to compete is a result of oversensitivity on my part. While competition wouldn't be necessary if everyone thought like me, there are lots of people who are more comfortable in a hierarchy than out of one, and who get energized from the thrill of competition, and use that to motivate themselves to improve. A tense and fast-paced outlook is no better or worse than my relaxed and methodical one. I can respect the tenacity and guts of those who like to compete, even though I can't relate to how they could enjoy it. From my point of view, there's no point in trying if I'm not going to succeed, so competing is a major discouraging factor, but for those who are willing to take risks, and who learn their flaws by failing because of them, it's just as powerful a motivating force.

In short, while competition is useless to me personally, I certainly won't deny that it's done a lot for us all, because that's simply how some people motivate and improve. It's not the only way to get there, but neither is my way, and the fact is that both approaches are necessary simply because that's just how the people that use them work.
208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 9/18/13
The only people who whine about competition are the ones who keep losing.

If you don't like competing against others - either don't participate - OR - "compete" against yourself and don't mind the others.
Posted 9/21/13
The strong overcome the weak. The use is deciding who gets the Darwin Award and who spirals into depressions and dies.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.