bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (03/31/88)
I was intrigued by Laura Creighton's item about her friend who viewed bridge as an unworthy activity because it sets the goal of beating one's opponent. I think we should distinguish between friendly competition (sport) for the purposes of sharpening one's skills, and hostile aggression for the purpose of beating one's foes. The word "compete" comes from the latin com + petere, meaning "to seek together". Healthy competition can motivate us to reach new heights. It is also theorized that it takes a higher level of intelligence to engage in cooperative behavior than in competitive behavior. The concept of a non-zero sum game that admits of a win-win outcome seems to be harder to grasp than the concept of a zero sum game that only admits of a win-lose outcome. While I don't think competitive behavior is necessarily bad, I do support the notion that cooperative behavior is more enlightened. As to hostile aggression, I think we've seen enough of net.flame. --Barry Kort "An eye for an eye, and pretty soon the whole world is blind." --Gandhi "A barb for a barb, and pretty soon the whole network is barbed wire." --Anonymous
vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (03/31/88)
In article <28124@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes: >I think we should distinguish between friendly competition (sport) >for the purposes of sharpening one's skills, and hostile aggression >for the purpose of beating one's foes. I'm a debator by nature, a philosopher by training (one day for money?), a professional software designer, Go player, and frequent poster here ( ;-> ). In all these areas, I've found that being able to compete without ego (without hostility, aggression) is absolutely critical to whatever success I have had. On those occasions where I "lose" it, I almost always lose the argument/game/point, or make some terribly embarrassing faux pas. Whereas when my "opponent" has a personal investment, I'm at an advantage. I guess it's the Mr. Spock syndrome. >The word "compete" comes from the latin com + petere, meaning >"to seek together". Healthy competition can motivate us to reach >new heights. I find it *very* helpful (especially in Go) to have a constructive attitude, that is, it's not me against my opponent, but rather it's me *with* my opponent *against the game/problem/issue*. It's almost like the game is more real than either of us, and we're just exploring it. The key is to know when you're wrong, and have enough security and confidence (enough ego) to instantly admit it, and move on. >It is also theorized that it takes a higher level of intelligence >to engage in cooperative behavior than in competitive behavior. >The concept of a non-zero sum game that admits of a win-win >outcome seems to be harder to grasp than the concept of a zero >sum game that only admits of a win-lose outcome. Well, on the other hand I don't pull any punches when I'm right, and I do certainly try to win. While I act cooperatively, I wouldn't dare say I'm more intelligent for it. Rather I suspect that cooperation:competition are a kind of dialectic, and like in so many others (nature:nurture, mind:body, we could go on and on) both sides of the dualism are necessary, and neither is individually sufficient. >--Barry Kort O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician | Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York | vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .