5 ms·

Obviously. When teams of people compete intensely , the collaboration within the teams themselves must be just as intense. I find it slightly offensive that s

Obviously. When teams of people compete intensely , the collaboration within the teams themselves must be just as intense. I find it slightly offensive that someone would accuse me of discounting collaboration when 1. I never discounted it, 2. It's obvious that society is full of people who collaborate. In what universe are the words "zero sum" apt for my response? None. I never described a zero sum game. Obviously, the replier added the description with his biased imagination. I'm just saying spiciness and intense rivalry and competition can lead to results beneficial to society. There are tons of examples of intense competition and rivalry leading to great results in science. The decoding of the human genome for one.

xu_ituairo 6y ago
> The more spiciness and completive things are the better the overall results. That line made you sound all-in on zero sum competition. But you’ve clarified now and softened it to say it can lead to beneficial results.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  I never edited any of my posts. That line is just a fragment of the post, which specifically has this line: “ We all like to think that collaboration, harmony and love drives innovation but much of innovation is built around intense rivalry and competition as well.” Keyword here is “as well”. If you feel the need to respond or vote someone down please read the post carefully rather then respond or vote baselessly. More clarification is necessary. Competition is the driver of natural selection. Your entire biological form exists as an evolution of winning traits because your ancestors out competed and defeated others who fought to reproduce so someone else could take your place. Competition is therefore a primary driver of your existence while collaboration is secondary. It’s not that competition can lead to benefits, the phenomenon that occurs is that collaboration can actually work but only as a tertiary driver behind competition. See communism if you want to know the results of a society formed with collaboration over competition as the primary driver.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gumby 6y ago
> I find it slightly offensive that someone would accuse me of discounting collaboration when 1. I never discounted it, 2. It's obvious that society is full of people who collaborate. In what universe are the words "zero sum" apt for my response? None. I never described a zero sum game. Obviously, the replier added the description with his biased imagination. You wrote, "Winner takes all" which seems pretty zero sum to me, hence my comment.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  Your post implies that I discounted collaboration which I obviously did not. Look at the original post again, it deliberately says that competition is important as well as collaboration. Hence why your reply is categorically baseless. As for “winner takes all” why don’t you look up the definition of a “zero sum game”. A zero sum game usually applies to simplistic games like chess or an island with limited resources aka things that have a measurable gains and losses. Complex situations like the one described are rarely zero sum. When I say winner takes all its more of an “expression” symbolizing the intensity of competition. I think it’s quite obvious that the situation here is not some contest setup so that a single winner takes everything. There’s no need to make your self sound smart and use the words “zero sum game” redundantly. Only certain types of people use the words “zero sum game” colloquially for the purposes of sounding smart even though the majority of situations in nature aren’t actually artificial games setup to be zero sum. The word is also used negatively as if zero sum games can’t ever exist. Like it’s obviously wrong if your describing a zero sum game. It’s rare but zero sum games do exist so stating that something is a zero sum game doesn’t move the conversation forward. Like so what? Yeah I could be describing a zero sum game, it doesn’t make me wrong, what’s your point? Case in point, the credit for the First person or team who can get Linux running on the m1 IS a zero sum game and there already is a winner for that “game.”

xu_ituairo 6y ago

> The more spiciness and completive things are the better the overall results. That line made you sound all-in on zero sum competition. But you’ve clarified now and softened it to say it can lead to beneficial results.

Geminidog 6y ago
I never edited any of my posts. That line is just a fragment of the post, which specifically has this line: “ We all like to think that collaboration, harmony and love drives innovation but much of innovation is built around intense rivalry and competition as well.” Keyword here is “as well”. If you feel the need to respond or vote someone down please read the post carefully rather then respond or vote baselessly. More clarification is necessary. Competition is the driver of natural selection. Your entire biological form exists as an evolution of winning traits because your ancestors out competed and defeated others who fought to reproduce so someone else could take your place. Competition is therefore a primary driver of your existence while collaboration is secondary. It’s not that competition can lead to benefits, the phenomenon that occurs is that collaboration can actually work but only as a tertiary driver behind competition. See communism if you want to know the results of a society formed with collaboration over competition as the primary driver.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gumby 6y ago

> I find it slightly offensive that someone would accuse me of discounting collaboration when 1. I never discounted it, 2. It's obvious that society is full of people who collaborate. In what universe are the words "zero sum" apt for my response? None. I never described a zero sum game. Obviously, the replier added the description with his biased imagination. You wrote, "Winner takes all" which seems pretty zero sum to me, hence my comment.

Geminidog 6y ago
Your post implies that I discounted collaboration which I obviously did not. Look at the original post again, it deliberately says that competition is important as well as collaboration. Hence why your reply is categorically baseless. As for “winner takes all” why don’t you look up the definition of a “zero sum game”. A zero sum game usually applies to simplistic games like chess or an island with limited resources aka things that have a measurable gains and losses. Complex situations like the one described are rarely zero sum. When I say winner takes all its more of an “expression” symbolizing the intensity of competition. I think it’s quite obvious that the situation here is not some contest setup so that a single winner takes everything. There’s no need to make your self sound smart and use the words “zero sum game” redundantly. Only certain types of people use the words “zero sum game” colloquially for the purposes of sounding smart even though the majority of situations in nature aren’t actually artificial games setup to be zero sum. The word is also used negatively as if zero sum games can’t ever exist. Like it’s obviously wrong if your describing a zero sum game. It’s rare but zero sum games do exist so stating that something is a zero sum game doesn’t move the conversation forward. Like so what? Yeah I could be describing a zero sum game, it doesn’t make me wrong, what’s your point? Case in point, the credit for the First person or team who can get Linux running on the m1 IS a zero sum game and there already is a winner for that “game.”