Discussion of competition

The fact that one group has to lose in order to allow another group to win is effectively irrelevant.

In any case, I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to argue. That competition is wrong because it encourages people to be better than one another at a game? That it is wrong inherently?

 

Sounds like commie pinko talk to me.

 

VH, if you're going to pressgang Reactorcore into your squadron for KARPS and such, then do it in a pm. :P

RC, what do you mean it causes a negative effect on culture? As far as I can tell, the very basis of culture was built upon competition and emulation.

 

No, RC, I'm sorry but I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about anymore. All I can draw from what you've said is that you are against the very idea of competitive games because they indirectly encourage people to take pleasure from the fact that other people lose.

 

The trouble in this situation, that I can gauge, is that it is a normal thing to be competitive. It's always been a normal thing, from what I can see, and I don't think it will ever not be a normal thing. Everything seems to, in some way, involve competition with, or emulation of, others. To say that this isn't the case makes me wonder what kind of society you come from, and whether it's human or not.

 

I'm sure you have data to back this up. Mind sharing it?

 

What sort of situations involve no competition whatsoever, then, or could in fact be modified so that they could, potentially, involve no competition?

 

I deleted that post because Hella is arguing well already, but undeleted it again because apparently you're faster than I am. (I guess you could say you competed with me and won)

Anyway, I don't think you understand what data means.

>the glaring proof all around us of any competitive heavy communities

What, like the USA, the greatest country in the history of humanity, which prizes competition?

 

Good call, Contra. Moved to Misc.
----

RC, you've got some good points but I fear some of your arguments suffer from a-bridge-too-far syndrome-- in as much as they are based on personal assertion or over-generalisations.

Briefly:

• This is personal assertion on your part as you do not supply actual, published, research (I'm sorry, as interesting as that article you linked us to was, it doesn't constitute substantive proof of a researched nature) and, however frustrating it may be, what you define as "common sense" may not meet up with other people's definitions of "common sense"-- which means that you really need to provide a reasonable, internally consistent, argument to justify saying 'competitive behaviour is destructive for society.'

• Now, looking at the argument you have provided thus far they seem to rest heavily on the idea that all forms of competition are inherently negative.

• Further more, the reasoning behind this idea of 'all forms of competition being inherently negative' appears to be the assumption that the fundamentals of competition (i.e. winning and losing) involves Parties A & B engaging in mental/emotional/physical transactions such that each party degrades the other in thought/word/deed, which in turn leads to a degradation or severance in A:B relationality (which, in ethical terms, is a bad thing).

• I call the above an assumption (and bold it for emphasis) because it makes a claim to know how everyone (regardless of age/experience/training/inclination/creed/etc.) will respond to having won/lost; this is a huge claim to make and almost certainly falls under the heading of 'gross over-generalisation'.

• Additionally, such a blanket assumption does not address factors such as a possible distinction between 'trivial' & 'non-trivial' competition (e.g.: the notion of 'friendly competition', which several people have voiced) and choice on the part of an independent agent (e.g.: someone 'choosing' to not get riled about a loss-- or even: someone losing, feeling upset about it, and then 'choosing' to not allow their initial reaction to define their final response to the loss). Of course, some non-negative reactions to competition & winning/losing require a certain amount of maturity & mental/emotional discipline, but just because not everyone (e.g. children) are capable of a certain response to stimuli does not mean that you can apply the rule across the board.

• In the above 2 points I have highlighted some grave problems with your assumptions about the nature of competition. There are more things I could mention, but I feel that it's fair to say that (pending further evidences [like real, solid, peer-reviewed studies]) sufficient doubt has been cast on the basis of your main argument
  that you should either retract it or refine it so that it rests on more solid presuppositions.

...

Huh. Looks like my 'briefly' is longer than I thought... ^-^;

 

Didn't this all start because you felt that KAG should be all ZF and no CTF?