Competition

[Dglgmut]

Normally I just post my thoughts on different topics and hope for feedback... this time I'm wondering what other people think.

The spirit of competition--the desire to be better than other people; where does it come from?

Capitalism is all about competition, yet it doesn't appeal as much to the competitive spirit. Capitalism is about people doing what they're good at as well as they can; it's about fulfilling potential--not about people trying to be comparatively better.

Objectivism is about being as good as you can be, while a competitive spirit includes hindering others.

What is it that makes people compare themselves to others? Some people do it, and some people don't. What is the difference between these two types of people?

[BaalChatzaf]

Normally I just post my thoughts on different topics and hope for feedback... this time I'm wondering what other people think.

The spirit of competition--the desire to be better than other people; where does it come from?

Capitalism is all about competition, yet it doesn't appeal as much to the competitive spirit. Capitalism is about people doing what they're good at as well as they can; it's about fulfilling potential--not about people trying to be comparatively better.

Objectivism is about being as good as you can be, while a competitive spirit includes hindering others.

What is it that makes people compare themselves to others? Some people do it, and some people don't. What is the difference between these two types of people?

If Runner A outruns Runner B how has A hindered B?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

If Runner A outruns Runner B how has A hindered B?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Something to do with the bear chasing them. I think.

--Brant

[blackhorse]

I wouldn't say that competition is "the desire to be better than other people", but rather the desire to be one's personal best. Winning is also about pride; pride in achieving an accomplishment. I don't think less of someone just because I may excel at something better than they or may have bested them in an event. Competition is also about fun.-how far can we go?-what records can be broken?-what comraderies can be built?

[Dglgmut]

Competitive spirit is about being better than others. Ambition and competitiveness are not the same.

Also, just because competitive events do not necessitate a competitive spirit to succeed in doesn't mean you can redefine the word. Just as a free market is competitive, it ideally is more about personal ambition.

To Bob... two runners competing may not have the option to hinder one another, but I'm not talking about any specific form of competition... I'm talking about the competitive spirit--the desire to be better than others.

[blackhorse]

How do you define "the desire to be better than others"? What is your premise and definition? Are you speaking of a superiority complex? Ambition and competitiveness are also not mutually exclusive, either, but depends on the context.

[Dglgmut]

How do you define "the desire to be better than others"? What is your premise and definition? Are you speaking of a superiority complex? Ambition and competitiveness are also not mutually exclusive, either, but depends on the context.

To partake in competition and to have a competitive spirit are not the same thing.

I'm not talking about a superiority complex but of what most people demonstrate every day. Little things to try to make sure they hold their spot on the social ladder, or to raise above others... not by achieving objective goals, but by increasing their relative value.

When you set a goal to be better than others, you allow others to set your goal for you. An objective goal is set by considering one's own potential, not worrying about what others have, haven't, can, or can't do.

---

I wonder if it has to do with a weak sense of self...

[Dan Haggerty]

Everything man needs to survive is finite. It is the fact resources, goods, and capital is finite that drives economics since man has to produce his survival, or as in modern macroeconomic speak: “Fill his want and needs”. It is likely that early man had to be very competitive to get his limited food, water, or shelter before another did. Today it doesn’t necessitate the need for competitiveness daily in terms of life or death, the benefit of living in a civilized world long removed from the days of savages, but the general principle remains the same. People compete for limited jobs or businesses compete for limited customers, as an example. This doesn’t even begin to cover the scale or diversity people can compete, everything from friendly sporting events (Go Tigers!) to a serious life changing competition (a Presidential Election).

And this is not a bad thing, even today. If the story of economics is how goods and services flow through an economy, and assuming you do want the maximum goods and services going to the maximum people, then it is competition that allows this happen. Only the best produce the most for the least price people are willing to accept. Without competition people would settle for whoever produced something without consideration for quality or cost, resulting not in a modern economy but a stagnant fog likely reminiscent of a reverse engineered Iron Curtain country circa the 70’s.

But the principle is the same no matter the subject or depth of the reason. We compete because realty gives us limited resources and from there the process writes itself, from survival to man’s need of accomplishment as a source of pride, both life giving in their own ways.

[anthony]

Fine for finding that extra motivation, honing one's edge (so to speak) but overall

competition is only peripheral to individualism and capitalism, I think.

The competitive can become the comparative, over- much.

To a greater degree are we each involved in discovering our own original expressions

of output.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We compete because social standing is hardwired into our brain. This is being proven by neuroscience.

When you filter through morality the urge to be number one in your social group, whether in sports, in power, in production, in talent, whatever, you use competition as a motivational tool to elevate yourself. You seek your highest performance and abilities. You not only compete against other people, you start competing against your own results of the past.

When you let the urge to elevate your social standing get out of balance with the other things in your brain and become top value, the main purpose of your life, you will ultimately succumb to the temptation to damage others in order to ascend.

In other words, competition is neither good nor bad by itself. You can channel it either way. It just is and we all have the urge.

It's like sex. You can let your sexual urge overcome everything else and become a rapist, or you can hold it in balance with other urges and values and reserve it solely for the person you love the most. Or somewhere in between.

Either you control the competition urge and thus ensure you gain a lot of benefits, or it controls you and you never know where it will lead.

I don't see any other alternatives. Short of a lobotomy, I don't see how to eliminate it altogether from our automatic urges.

Michael

[Xray]

The spirit of competition--the desire to be better than other people; where does it come from?

It has its origin in the need for survival. Humans live in groups and resources are limited, hence the drive to compete with others to get the largest share.

[BaalChatzaf]

Competitive spirit is about being better than others. Ambition and competitiveness are not the same.

Also, just because competitive events do not necessitate a competitive spirit to succeed in doesn't mean you can redefine the word. Just as a free market is competitive, it ideally is more about personal ambition.

To Bob... two runners competing may not have the option to hinder one another, but I'm not talking about any specific form of competition... I'm talking about the competitive spirit--the desire to be better than others.

How about the desire to better, period. To exceed one's personal best?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

Competitive spirit is about being better than others. Ambition and competitiveness are not the same.

Also, just because competitive events do not necessitate a competitive spirit to succeed in doesn't mean you can redefine the word. Just as a free market is competitive, it ideally is more about personal ambition.

To Bob... two runners competing may not have the option to hinder one another, but I'm not talking about any specific form of competition... I'm talking about the competitive spirit--the desire to be better than others.

How about the desire to better, period. To exceed one's personal best?

Ba'al Chatzaf

And that I'd say is ambition. Maybe the two go hand in hand...

Have you ever met someone who didn't mind losing? I know I have, but I'm trying to think if I've ever met one of those people that was also driven to be the best they could be...

But then you have to ask, what is the point of self-improvement? It would ideally be to increase the enjoyment one can get out of life... yeah?

As Dan brought up, fighting for survival would obviously justify competitiveness. But I do think people compare themselves to others way too much...

Again, I think the utility of competition is great... it is the mentality that I'm focusing on.

[jts]

From ARL:

Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.

The difference is not always clear to me. What would be the difference between the desire to achieve and the desire to beat others for a professional boxer such as Muhammad Ali or a professional chess player such as Garry Kasparov?

Even for a person lower on the pyramid of ability, the difference is not always clear to me. A man applying for a job must compete against others applying for the same job. A businessman must compete against other businessmen for customers. An employer must compete against other employers for good employees. A novelist must compete against other novelists to get a novel published. After a novel is published, it must compete against other novels for the customer's money. Etc.

[anthony]

jts, nice quote. It draws the distinction (at their furthest extremes) between rational

egoism and the polar opposite, second-handedness. One represents productivity for its, and one's, own sake, as the consequence of the producer's virtue, energy and ideas, and for his reward - and the second is dependent on others' productivity - beating them only for the sake of beating them, and drawing false pride (and unearned profit) from it.

But those are the extremes of a continuum, I think. The complexity of competitiveness means it can only possibly be calculated by oneself: when to stay true to your own methods and goals, when to be comparative with other businesses/individuals for survival and profit.

There is also the dog-eat-dog, one-sized-pie myths of capitalism and competition. In reality, the market grows with each entrant and supports all capable, creative ones.

The world isn't a boxing arena (but even the boxer who 'comes second' - like Avis and Hertz - collects a purse..)

Complicated and also simple, this is for economists to explain better.

Rand's fiction sells alongside Barbara Cartland's (ouch!)- each brings more readers into the market, benefiting both authors.

[shifty]

I think the competive spirit you describe is different from mine. The difference is that it's not about being "better" than the competition. It's about "beating" the competition.

To me, the competitive spirit consist of the drive to out do your competition with ur fellows in arms. To make a better product and leave the enemy with nothing, and take all the glory away with ur allies.

Being "better" is not the same. It could be that when u beat the other guy u are better, and so pride follows, but beating him comes first. That is why competitors do it imo. Its about being first and wining it all.

[anthony]

Is that in keeping with Austrian economics, you list as an interest?

I've no expertise, but I wouldn't think so.

And how! we differ.

I suspect you are assuming that you'd win every encounter with the "enemy"...

It's a war you're describing, and your first lost battle would likely be your last.

In L-F capitalism, one may come second, and 1002nd, and survive happily.

(I am trying to imagine 100 million people 'competing' for every square meter, and every dollar, and every resource, until a few power gangs emerge as 'winners' - and my mind boggles; this isn't capitalism, and not individualism. "Survival of the fittest"/ Social Darwinism is an altruist-tribalist notion, as well as a malignant world view, imo. Isn't

this how men handed capitalism over to Statism?)

[MrBenjamatic]

From ARL:

Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.

The difference is not always clear to me. What would be the difference between the desire to achieve and the desire to beat others for a professional boxer such as Muhammad Ali or a professional chess player such as Garry Kasparov?

Even for a person lower on the pyramid of ability, the difference is not always clear to me. A man applying for a job must compete against others applying for the same job. A businessman must compete against other businessmen for customers. An employer must compete against other employers for good employees. A novelist must compete against other novelists to get a novel published. After a novel is published, it must compete against other novels for the customer's money. Etc.

Sports are a game. In a game some lose and some win (except perhaps some games I haven't heard of). In business there's not always one winner in a single field (like Gary Cola who should be the richest as his metal (Bainite Steel) is the best, but doesn't even have his own foundry as he's being ignored). I don't consider economics to be a game. In rational business (whether it be industry, art, etc) Its not important whether or not you beat others, its important that you achieve that which you rationally decided and set out to achieve. In other words using sports as a metaphor for economics is fine so long as you don't overstretch the metaphor. Every single thing is not exactly like every single thing, metaphors can only represent to limited degrees. Sports are not exactly like economics.

[caroljane]

From ARL:

Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.

The difference is not always clear to me. What would be the difference between the desire to achieve and the desire to beat others for a professional boxer such as Muhammad Ali or a professional chess player such as Garry Kasparov?

Even for a person lower on the pyramid of ability, the difference is not always clear to me. A man applying for a job must compete against others applying for the same job. A businessman must compete against other businessmen for customers. An employer must compete against other employers for good employees. A novelist must compete against other novelists to get a novel published. After a novel is published, it must compete against other novels for the customer's money. Etc.

Sports are a game. In a game some lose and some win (except perhaps some games I haven't heard of). In business there's not always one winner in a single field (like Gary Cola who should be the richest as his metal (Bainite Steel) is the best, but doesn't even have his own foundry as he's being ignored). I don't consider economics to be a game. In rational business (whether it be industry, art, etc) Its not important whether or not you beat others, its important that you achieve that which you rationally decided and set out to achieve. In other words using sports as a metaphor for economics is fine so long as you don't overstretch the metaphor. Every single thing is not exactly like every single thing, metaphors can only represent to limited degrees. Sports are not exactly like economics.

They certainly are not and I wish you would tell that to the NHL.

[shifty]

Is that in keeping with Austrian economics, you list as an interest?

I've no expertise, but I wouldn't think so.

I don't think Austrian economics addresses the competitive spirit, but I'm no expert either.

And how! we differ.

I suspect you are assuming that you'd win every encounter with the "enemy"...

It's a war you're describing, and your first lost battle would likely be your last.

In L-F capitalism, one may come second, and 1002nd, and survive happily.

You suspect wrong. The threat of loosing is a reality, and it can happen to me and anyone else. And, depending on what you play, if you make a first move and loose you can have long lasting consequences. Moreover, not surviving is a literally reality for a business.

(I am trying to imagine 100 million people 'competing' for every square meter, and every dollar, and every resource, until a few power gangs emerge as 'winners' - and my mind boggles; this isn't capitalism, and not individualism.

"Survival of the fittest"/ Social Darwinism is an altruist-tribalist notion, as well as a malignant world view, imo. Isn't

this how men handed capitalism over to Statism?)

But we do compete for every dollar. I'm sure earning money is not like a picnic. Also, what you describe seems like anarchy, and I'm not an anarchist.

I'm really lost on how you came up with Social Darwinism to be an altruist-tribalist notion. Not like it matters because I'm not enamored with the idea of survival of the fittest anyways. It doesn't matter to me that others are "fitter". I just want to survive.

[anthony]

Shifty, that's a shift (sorry) from "It's about beating the competition" - to "I just want to survive."

I might be wrong. The latter I agree with, naturally.

However, don't you see the distinction between the rational selfishness of placing

prime emphasis on your own values and action and profit; and that of focusing upon,

and defeating, others' values, actions, profit? I think there's an egoist/altruist

divide here. Altruism is not only 'the giving' to others, but also includes the predominant over-

emphasis upon 'others', too - in my opinion - but many may not agree.

Competition helps keep us lean and mean, but it should never be the whole point - as that

Rand quote makes clear. In a free economy, there's plenty of room for all.

[shifty]

Shifty, that's a shift (sorry) from "It's about beating the competition" - to "I just want to survive."

I might be wrong. The latter I agree with, naturally.

However, don't you see the distinction between the rational selfishness of placing

prime emphasis on your own values and action and profit; and that of focusing upon,

and defeating, others' values, actions, profit? I think there's an egoist/altruist

divide here. Altruism is not only 'the giving' to others, but also includes the predominant over-

emphasis upon 'others', too - in my opinion - but many may not agree.

Competition helps keep us lean and mean, but it should never be the whole point - as that

Rand quote makes clear. In a free economy, there's plenty of room for all.

You are right and there is a shift, but not because I changed my stance. I just changed its focus. You want to win, but you don't want to loose too (greed vs fear). In essence, it's other side of the same coin.

Defeating others serves both purposes. It's a focus on others, but there is so much value for me though. You can't just work at ur own pace and not fear or envy the competition. My value goes up when I know my work is either among the best or good enough to hang on.

IMO, for me, the point is still myself, but beating others is the core of "the competitive spirit". And it's not elevating others over myself so it's not altruism.

[Brant Gaede]

There is competition with grace and competition without grace. To be the best you can against the best is the former while to win at any cost is the latter. The latter is the second-hander. The runner giving his all who comes in last has finished ahead of the winner who cheats. Now, in war, we are not gentlemen. We don't think of cheating. We think of winning and surviving--making "the other guy die for his country." In Vietnam my mantra was never to let that other guy get the drop on me. Sometimes he did, but I blew on by. Sometimes in airboats, sometimes in the air. Sometimes I wonder about IEDs. The curse of Americans in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Why are they so effective? In my Special Forces training we were taught to never go down roads. Never go down trails. All IEDs are are ambushes. Down roads and down trails--there you'll find the ambushes. They are waiting for you. WTF! is going on?

--Brant

I can't answer because I have no on-the-ground experience in those countries

[anthony]

Shifty, that's a shift (sorry) from "It's about beating the competition" - to "I just want to survive."

I might be wrong. The latter I agree with, naturally.

However, don't you see the distinction between the rational selfishness of placing

prime emphasis on your own values and action and profit; and that of focusing upon,

and defeating, others' values, actions, profit? I think there's an egoist/altruist

divide here. Altruism is not only 'the giving' to others, but also includes the predominant over-

emphasis upon 'others', too - in my opinion - but many may not agree.

Competition helps keep us lean and mean, but it should never be the whole point - as that

Rand quote makes clear. In a free economy, there's plenty of room for all.

You are right and there is a shift, but not because I changed my stance. I just changed its focus. You want to win, but you don't want to loose too (greed vs fear). In essence, it's other side of the same coin.

Defeating others serves both purposes. It's a focus on others, but there is so much value for me though. You can't just work at ur own pace and not fear or envy the competition. My value goes up when I know my work is either among the best or good enough to hang on.

IMO, for me, the point is still myself, but beating others is the core of "the competitive spirit". And it's not elevating others over myself so it's not altruism.

OK, I see the distinctions - but still:

If we begin with capitalism as the most moral system men have known, we have to ascertain

what makes it (and keeps it) moral, and essentially it reduces to each person being

the standard of his own existence. Bringing in the emphasis on comparative-predatory capitalist business practice carries the premise that other people are the standard of one's life and business. This is my understanding of altruism (at its broadest): living by the standards of other people. iow, a second-hander.

Practically, one who evaluates himself - largely - according to others' performance;

he feels he must take what they have, to flourish;

he gains fake pride in defeating them, rather than self-esteem in his achievement;

above all, it is the view that we can only succeed at others' cost - as they succeed at our cost.

The last is the childish fallacy of the zero-sum game, which (incredibly) still holds sway in the vast majority of people.

Let's face it, we have never in our lives experienced total laissez-faire.

We can only conjecture at what it'd be like without cronyism, regulation, fear and favor.

I'd guess this breeds a culture of predation - since one thinks and acts short-term in it: uncertainty of Statist interventions and 'special treatment', mean we tend to grab what we can, when we can -

ironically confirming the liberal-progressive's accusations of the evil of capitalism.

I'll guess further, that the comparative-predatory capitalists would slowly but surely die

out in a completely free market, where rational self-interest would receive its just rewards in reality.

[anthony]

There is competition with grace and competition without grace. To be the best you can against the best is the former while to win at any cost is the latter. The latter is the second-hander. The runner giving his all who comes in last has finished ahead of the winner who cheats.

Brant, yes, character comes in to it as well as conviction. There's the big down-side to the win-at-

all-costs, competitive, spirit. What could one, would one, do, to 'win'?

Athlete or businessman, are both faced with choices to cheat. In fact, NOT cheating in the climate

we have today, is an indicator of remarkable virtue - in my book.

You make me think of Lance Armstrong, and the slippery slope he must have entered.

For what? Glory, wealth? A crying shame, when a man of such talent might well have won a couple

of Tours de France unaided.

(But so-called "cheating" on taxes? That's a whole 'nother story..)