8 ms·

Every champion needs a rival

62 points by pbardea 1y ago

Animats 1y ago
That's why capitalism is in trouble. No rival. Having communism around kept capitalism honest. Without competition, it turned into "Greed is good, greed works". The best years for American workers were the post WWII years, when communism looked like a real threat.
- lukebechtel 1y ago
  Wow, interesting point. Not sure I totally agree -- but it made me have the amusing thought: "Maybe we need metacapitalism."
  - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    I would argue the social-democracies of Europe are exactly what that is. The idea the free market can address so many things better than any other economic model, but maybe ruthless profits shouldn't drive health care.
    - dumama 1y ago
      Agreed. The market needs to be well regulated in order for it to be tuned for human well-being rather than just greed. It's clear that ruthless profits can't be your optimizing function when it comes health care, housing, education, and environment.
- kryogen1c 1y ago
  >That's why capitalism is in trouble. No rival. Isn't this an oxymoron? Isn't regulated free market competition a foundational principal of capitalism?
  - Animats 1y ago
    The point I'm making here was well understood in the post-WWII era. Here's the cartoon version: "Meet King Joe".[1] The more serious version, "Despotism".[2] The hard sell version, "How to lose what we have."[3] All of these were produced for industrial companies. It's worth understanding how this was viewed by the generation that won WWII. [1] https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949 https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949 [2] https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946 https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946 [3] https://archive.org/details/InOurHan1950_3 https://archive.org/details/InOurHan1950_3
    - dzonga 1y ago
      wow!! thank you for bringing up these videos. seems also then the american elite lost the way -- engaging in financial engineering rather than actual production.
  - reverendsteveii 1y ago
    capitalists have rivals, but capitalism does not
  - schmidtleonard 1y ago
    Nope. Private capital allocation decisions are the foundation. It is a mistake to mix this with wishful thinking, the same flavor of mistake as claiming "socialism is about making economic decisions that reflect the will of the people rather than the will of the rich," it assumes success at the aspirational principle when that assumption is something you must avoid at all costs if you want to understand success/failure at achieving the aspirational principle. Instead, a discussion about the foundation of a system should be very carefully confined to what the system actually does: capitalism is about private capital allocation decisions, socialism is about public capital allocation decisions, and in practice everything is mixed. Anticompetitive incentives and behavior are a natural emergent property on top of the private ownership foundation: network effects, platform effects, last mile dynamics, dumping, hell even economies of scale are intrinsically anticompetitive at the same time as they are intrinsically beneficial. Regulation to restore competition amid these natural anticompetitive tendencies can keep them in check and most people would agree this is generally a good idea -- but most people don't make the capital allocation decisions and most people don't learn about the world except through media controlled by people who do, so not only are the regulations 3 stories above the foundational principle, they are doubly insulated from effectively checking the dark forest on the second story by the very nature of the foundation itself. You have probably heard about how misalignment emerges in socialism, because that is a story the jedi would tell you: capital allocation decisions made without skin-in-the-game accountability tend to cause malinvestment because as far as elected representatives are concerned the job is the product. Of course, a socialist government is aware of this tendency and tries to control it, just like a capitalist government is aware of anticompetitive tendencies in its own economy and tries to control them. The degree of success varies. When there is nothing to compare against, propaganda can hide almost any mismanagement, so I am glad that we seem to be entering a second period of genuine competition. I'm less glad that this brings with it a second period of genuine "hopefully we don't kill each other / ourselves," but so it goes.
- dylan604 1y ago
  So, when did communism go away?
- lizardking 1y ago
  When the rest of the industrial world is destroyed, it turns out to be a pretty good time for your workers.
hangonhn 1y ago
Highly recommend the movie "Rush" about the F1 rivalry between Niki Lauda and James Hunt. The movie is highly dramatized but this is one of the themes.
- tsaifu 1y ago
  incredible movie. supposedly does james hunt dirty though
lordnacho 1y ago
What I find interesting about American Football is that the QBs are considered rivals, despite never being on the pitch at the same time. Messi and Ronaldo actually appear on many images contesting the same ball, Peyton and Brady you'd struggle to find pictures other than the post-match handshake. Why isn't the rivalry considered to be between the QB and someone on the defense? There's actually two matchups in an NFL game (plus specials but whatever), the two offense versus defense pairings. It's odd to make the rivalry about two guys who aren't directly tackling each other, when there are people on both teams who really are tackling those guys.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  We compare QBs because QBs are comparable. It's really difficult to build a narrative around the number of passes one person completes vs the number of tackles a different person dishes out to different people on different teams, but very easy and meaningful to compare completion percentages for two quarterbacks. It's also because QB is considered a leadership and decision-making role moreso than any other position on the field, and so the overall performance of the offense tends to be attributed to the team as a whole but the QBs are compared on the decisions they make on the field and the rest of the offensive units are compared on their ability to execute those decisions.
- hangonhn 1y ago
  Wow. That's such an interesting observation. Two major uniquely American sports have this pattern: QBs in football and pitchers in baseball. I wonder if it is just a coincidence of history. I guess cricket has the same pattern as well?
  - dylan604 1y ago
    If you think that's interesting, did you ever consider that baseball is the only sport where the defense has the ball?
    - leosanchez 1y ago
      Cricket?
reverendsteveii 1y ago
thesis: every champion needs a rival to draw out the best in them antithesis: there is nothing about the existence of any other person that changes what my best is or whether I deliver it potential synthesis: I am my own perfect rival. I am right at my skill level, my career is a perfect parallel to my own, I don't need to look outside myself for a reason to improve and I can always do a little better than I did last time.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  actual point: if I'm the best at what I do, and nobody is pushing to become better than me, I will stagnate because nobody else has exposed a better possible pinnacle. Iron sharpens iron.
  - reverendsteveii 1y ago
    This doesn't preclude that though. Maybe it's because I'm a weightlifter and while we compete with one another we really don't, but my own numbers can be my rival. In fact, they're a much more effective rival than anyone else at the gym because they can never be permanently beaten, they can never retire, they will always demand more. If I wake up tomorrow and through some miracle I'm the best weightlifter on earth and can bench a 1000 pounds, 1005 pounds exists whether someone else can lift that much or not. If you're Tom Brady you don't need Peyton Manning in order to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions, you need to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions. If your rival has a career-ending injury does that define your pinnacle? Not if you're actually in competition with yourself it doesn't.
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      This is very simply refuted: you're not one of the 5 strongest people in the world. Brady, Manning, were the best at what they do, top 5 in the world at the time they played and to this day. When you're not competing with yourself, it's an entire world of difference. edit: typo
      - 1y ago
charlesabarnes 1y ago
This sort of competition drives every goal I have. Identify a rival to benchmark myself against and to hold myself accountable. I am surprised to see that he turns it into a "true enemy" relationship where the other party is "taking" something for you. I think that is perfect for sport rivalries, this sort of thinking probably wouldn't be the best for most readers of this.
- dylan604 1y ago
  If you get the job I was applying for, you'll be my bitter enemy until then end of days. Did you start receiving Hair Club For Men emails? bwhahahaha. Did your github repos start getting massively wasetful PRs? hmmmm...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
xavdid 1y ago
If you're interested in some (light) science behind rivalry and/or the Michigan/OSU rivalry, I highly recommend the documentary "Rivals: Ohio State vs. Michigan". It's a fun look into why a rivalry drives better performance. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22937658/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22937658/
darod 1y ago
2 tom brady posts on the front page in one day?
- hamrocksissors 1y ago
  and zero peyton manning posts, interesting
  - pedalpete 1y ago
    That's not where Peyton Manning is competing!
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Counterpoint: Federer and Nadal had a long friendship throughout their rivalry.
- pedalpete 1y ago
  Rivalry and competition does not mean enemy. Can you imagine what life would be like for either Federer or Nadal if the other didn't exist? It might be quite boring to play knowing you're always going to stomp every competitor. Use your competition to make you better, not just prove how good you are. This is the attitude we see in great competitors who get beyond their ego. [Edit] - what I originally commented wasn't a great example, so I re-wrote it.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    Did you read Tom’s post all the way through?
CSMastermind 1y ago
Seems like he's following a ridgid structure in his blog posts (reflection, learning, application). Is this a common framework? I've seen similar things but not this specific one before.
- sandspar 1y ago
  He's not a writer. He may have reasoned that he has lessons to share but lacks writing skills, so he relies on a framework. In art history, some of the greatest painters were people who were witnesses at the right time and place - we love their work today not for their craftsmanship but for their perspective.
cadamsdotcom 1y ago
Competition leads to great outcomes - in society, in business, in sports. In sports the rules are the same for all, and opportunities are made reasonably equal because that tends to lead to the best entertainment. The same is not true in business where unfair advantages are celebrated. Unfortunately this doesn't always lead to rivalry and often leads to monopolies which impede progress. If business was treated more like sport, we might have a very different society!
oumua_don17 1y ago
There has never been a rivalry in any sport better than that between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
dmvjs 1y ago
i think this speaks to the power of competition but not “every” one works this way

62 points by pbardea 1y ago

That's why capitalism is in trouble. No rival. Having communism around kept capitalism honest. Without competition, it turned into "Greed is good, greed works". The best years for American workers were the post WWII years, when communism looked like a real threat.

lukebechtel 1y ago
Wow, interesting point. Not sure I totally agree -- but it made me have the amusing thought: "Maybe we need metacapitalism."
- thinkingtoilet 1y ago
  I would argue the social-democracies of Europe are exactly what that is. The idea the free market can address so many things better than any other economic model, but maybe ruthless profits shouldn't drive health care.
  - dumama 1y ago
    Agreed. The market needs to be well regulated in order for it to be tuned for human well-being rather than just greed. It's clear that ruthless profits can't be your optimizing function when it comes health care, housing, education, and environment.
kryogen1c 1y ago
>That's why capitalism is in trouble. No rival. Isn't this an oxymoron? Isn't regulated free market competition a foundational principal of capitalism?
- Animats 1y ago
  The point I'm making here was well understood in the post-WWII era. Here's the cartoon version: "Meet King Joe".[1] The more serious version, "Despotism".[2] The hard sell version, "How to lose what we have."[3] All of these were produced for industrial companies. It's worth understanding how this was viewed by the generation that won WWII. [1] https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949 https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949 [2] https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946 https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946 [3] https://archive.org/details/InOurHan1950_3 https://archive.org/details/InOurHan1950_3
  - dzonga 1y ago
    wow!! thank you for bringing up these videos. seems also then the american elite lost the way -- engaging in financial engineering rather than actual production.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  capitalists have rivals, but capitalism does not
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  Nope. Private capital allocation decisions are the foundation. It is a mistake to mix this with wishful thinking, the same flavor of mistake as claiming "socialism is about making economic decisions that reflect the will of the people rather than the will of the rich," it assumes success at the aspirational principle when that assumption is something you must avoid at all costs if you want to understand success/failure at achieving the aspirational principle. Instead, a discussion about the foundation of a system should be very carefully confined to what the system actually does: capitalism is about private capital allocation decisions, socialism is about public capital allocation decisions, and in practice everything is mixed. Anticompetitive incentives and behavior are a natural emergent property on top of the private ownership foundation: network effects, platform effects, last mile dynamics, dumping, hell even economies of scale are intrinsically anticompetitive at the same time as they are intrinsically beneficial. Regulation to restore competition amid these natural anticompetitive tendencies can keep them in check and most people would agree this is generally a good idea -- but most people don't make the capital allocation decisions and most people don't learn about the world except through media controlled by people who do, so not only are the regulations 3 stories above the foundational principle, they are doubly insulated from effectively checking the dark forest on the second story by the very nature of the foundation itself. You have probably heard about how misalignment emerges in socialism, because that is a story the jedi would tell you: capital allocation decisions made without skin-in-the-game accountability tend to cause malinvestment because as far as elected representatives are concerned the job is the product. Of course, a socialist government is aware of this tendency and tries to control it, just like a capitalist government is aware of anticompetitive tendencies in its own economy and tries to control them. The degree of success varies. When there is nothing to compare against, propaganda can hide almost any mismanagement, so I am glad that we seem to be entering a second period of genuine competition. I'm less glad that this brings with it a second period of genuine "hopefully we don't kill each other / ourselves," but so it goes.
dylan604 1y ago
So, when did communism go away?
lizardking 1y ago
When the rest of the industrial world is destroyed, it turns out to be a pretty good time for your workers.

hangonhn 1y ago

Highly recommend the movie "Rush" about the F1 rivalry between Niki Lauda and James Hunt. The movie is highly dramatized but this is one of the themes.

tsaifu 1y ago
incredible movie. supposedly does james hunt dirty though

lordnacho 1y ago

What I find interesting about American Football is that the QBs are considered rivals, despite never being on the pitch at the same time. Messi and Ronaldo actually appear on many images contesting the same ball, Peyton and Brady you'd struggle to find pictures other than the post-match handshake. Why isn't the rivalry considered to be between the QB and someone on the defense? There's actually two matchups in an NFL game (plus specials but whatever), the two offense versus defense pairings. It's odd to make the rivalry about two guys who aren't directly tackling each other, when there are people on both teams who really are tackling those guys.

reverendsteveii 1y ago
We compare QBs because QBs are comparable. It's really difficult to build a narrative around the number of passes one person completes vs the number of tackles a different person dishes out to different people on different teams, but very easy and meaningful to compare completion percentages for two quarterbacks. It's also because QB is considered a leadership and decision-making role moreso than any other position on the field, and so the overall performance of the offense tends to be attributed to the team as a whole but the QBs are compared on the decisions they make on the field and the rest of the offensive units are compared on their ability to execute those decisions.
hangonhn 1y ago
Wow. That's such an interesting observation. Two major uniquely American sports have this pattern: QBs in football and pitchers in baseball. I wonder if it is just a coincidence of history. I guess cricket has the same pattern as well?
- dylan604 1y ago
  If you think that's interesting, did you ever consider that baseball is the only sport where the defense has the ball?
  - leosanchez 1y ago
    Cricket?

reverendsteveii 1y ago

thesis: every champion needs a rival to draw out the best in them antithesis: there is nothing about the existence of any other person that changes what my best is or whether I deliver it potential synthesis: I am my own perfect rival. I am right at my skill level, my career is a perfect parallel to my own, I don't need to look outside myself for a reason to improve and I can always do a little better than I did last time.

dgfitz 1y ago
actual point: if I'm the best at what I do, and nobody is pushing to become better than me, I will stagnate because nobody else has exposed a better possible pinnacle. Iron sharpens iron.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  This doesn't preclude that though. Maybe it's because I'm a weightlifter and while we compete with one another we really don't, but my own numbers can be my rival. In fact, they're a much more effective rival than anyone else at the gym because they can never be permanently beaten, they can never retire, they will always demand more. If I wake up tomorrow and through some miracle I'm the best weightlifter on earth and can bench a 1000 pounds, 1005 pounds exists whether someone else can lift that much or not. If you're Tom Brady you don't need Peyton Manning in order to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions, you need to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions. If your rival has a career-ending injury does that define your pinnacle? Not if you're actually in competition with yourself it doesn't.
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    This is very simply refuted: you're not one of the 5 strongest people in the world. Brady, Manning, were the best at what they do, top 5 in the world at the time they played and to this day. When you're not competing with yourself, it's an entire world of difference. edit: typo
    - 1y ago

charlesabarnes 1y ago

This sort of competition drives every goal I have. Identify a rival to benchmark myself against and to hold myself accountable. I am surprised to see that he turns it into a "true enemy" relationship where the other party is "taking" something for you. I think that is perfect for sport rivalries, this sort of thinking probably wouldn't be the best for most readers of this.

dylan604 1y ago
If you get the job I was applying for, you'll be my bitter enemy until then end of days. Did you start receiving Hair Club For Men emails? bwhahahaha. Did your github repos start getting massively wasetful PRs? hmmmm...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

xavdid 1y ago

If you're interested in some (light) science behind rivalry and/or the Michigan/OSU rivalry, I highly recommend the documentary "Rivals: Ohio State vs. Michigan". It's a fun look into why a rivalry drives better performance. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22937658/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22937658/

darod 1y ago

2 tom brady posts on the front page in one day?

hamrocksissors 1y ago
and zero peyton manning posts, interesting
- pedalpete 1y ago
  That's not where Peyton Manning is competing!

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Counterpoint: Federer and Nadal had a long friendship throughout their rivalry.

pedalpete 1y ago
Rivalry and competition does not mean enemy. Can you imagine what life would be like for either Federer or Nadal if the other didn't exist? It might be quite boring to play knowing you're always going to stomp every competitor. Use your competition to make you better, not just prove how good you are. This is the attitude we see in great competitors who get beyond their ego. [Edit] - what I originally commented wasn't a great example, so I re-wrote it.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  Did you read Tom’s post all the way through?

CSMastermind 1y ago

Seems like he's following a ridgid structure in his blog posts (reflection, learning, application). Is this a common framework? I've seen similar things but not this specific one before.

sandspar 1y ago
He's not a writer. He may have reasoned that he has lessons to share but lacks writing skills, so he relies on a framework. In art history, some of the greatest painters were people who were witnesses at the right time and place - we love their work today not for their craftsmanship but for their perspective.

cadamsdotcom 1y ago

Competition leads to great outcomes - in society, in business, in sports. In sports the rules are the same for all, and opportunities are made reasonably equal because that tends to lead to the best entertainment. The same is not true in business where unfair advantages are celebrated. Unfortunately this doesn't always lead to rivalry and often leads to monopolies which impede progress. If business was treated more like sport, we might have a very different society!

oumua_don17 1y ago

There has never been a rivalry in any sport better than that between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.

dmvjs 1y ago

i think this speaks to the power of competition but not “every” one works this way