4 ms·

I think competition in its essence is antisocial. If you are participating with the primary goal of winning, you're participating to make everyone else experien

by olau 5y ago

I think competition in its essence is antisocial. If you are participating with the primary goal of winning, you're participating to make everyone else experience a loss. I understand structuring social events as competitions adds drama and a sense of excitement, but as a parent I really wish people would think twice about it. Perhaps it's possible to just gather people with similar interests and have them share tricks and stories, without an aggressive agenda...

bobthechef 5y ago
That's because you construe competition purely in terms of dominance or something like that. But friendly competition can also be a means of bringing out your best. In other words, two friends can engage in friendly competition for mutual benefit.
aantix 5y ago
As a father with kids in sports, I want them to: - Learn to play well with others, even under stress - Figure out where they can help, and through that, identify their strengths/weaknesses - Know that they can demand more from themselves, especially under time constraints and can rise to meet those expectations It's about them seeing things through, be committed to their friends, showing up for themselves and the group. The drama of losing will happen, probably a lot, but it's OK, because the sun still rises again in the morning and you get a chance again to play and redeem. Such is life.
- borroka 5y ago
  This way of thinking, which is very legitimate, largely comes from the mythical idea of "sports teaching life" or "the English army came from the fields of Eton". But I have to say that apart from the extremes of the distribution, I have yet to see, after a life in sports, that much of a difference in personality, attitude, "values" between people who did sports extensively and people who did not. Physically, yes, there are huge differences, and it is more than enough and what I like for my kids. It is all part of the discourse that sounds good in theory and in fact it is value-driven (it sounds good and it must be good), but empirically it does not come up as solid as expected.
mym1990 5y ago
I don't think competing and winning have to be the same thing, they usually aren't. Winning is just an end result, a lot of times you might not have full control over that result. Competing has a lot more to do with effort and mindset. I play a lot of tennis and watch a lot of tennis, at very high levels a match can be decided by less than 10 shots, and those shots might be less than inches from being in or out. But just because the result is an L doesn't mean the competition wasn't high and some of great value wasn't gained for all parties. Also, competition being anti-social seems like a strange concept. Unless I am only in competition with myself, I do need participation from other parties, and that in itself creates a social environment, for better or for worse.

by olau 5y ago

bobthechef 5y ago

That's because you construe competition purely in terms of dominance or something like that. But friendly competition can also be a means of bringing out your best. In other words, two friends can engage in friendly competition for mutual benefit.

aantix 5y ago

As a father with kids in sports, I want them to: - Learn to play well with others, even under stress - Figure out where they can help, and through that, identify their strengths/weaknesses - Know that they can demand more from themselves, especially under time constraints and can rise to meet those expectations It's about them seeing things through, be committed to their friends, showing up for themselves and the group. The drama of losing will happen, probably a lot, but it's OK, because the sun still rises again in the morning and you get a chance again to play and redeem. Such is life.

borroka 5y ago
This way of thinking, which is very legitimate, largely comes from the mythical idea of "sports teaching life" or "the English army came from the fields of Eton". But I have to say that apart from the extremes of the distribution, I have yet to see, after a life in sports, that much of a difference in personality, attitude, "values" between people who did sports extensively and people who did not. Physically, yes, there are huge differences, and it is more than enough and what I like for my kids. It is all part of the discourse that sounds good in theory and in fact it is value-driven (it sounds good and it must be good), but empirically it does not come up as solid as expected.

mym1990 5y ago

I don't think competing and winning have to be the same thing, they usually aren't. Winning is just an end result, a lot of times you might not have full control over that result. Competing has a lot more to do with effort and mindset. I play a lot of tennis and watch a lot of tennis, at very high levels a match can be decided by less than 10 shots, and those shots might be less than inches from being in or out. But just because the result is an L doesn't mean the competition wasn't high and some of great value wasn't gained for all parties. Also, competition being anti-social seems like a strange concept. Unless I am only in competition with myself, I do need participation from other parties, and that in itself creates a social environment, for better or for worse.