Taipei Discussion Transcript: Competition

I’m team a, because inhumane is not good for people who do the competition. But I think it’s not a bad thing, when you compete in a fair way, or in the right way, it helps you get the motivation to do something. Ike when you play basketball with your friends, if you get points it makes you more devoted to this game.

I choose team D. Actually, I disagree with both team a ad team b. I think the competition tend to be inhumane, just like Mary said, in competition is human nature, is not a bad thing, but through in the process of our competition, human tend to hurt others, and behave in a bad way, such as treat other people, so…and I think competition is not the only way to improve the world, and the main incentive to improve ourself is not because we want to outdo others, I think it should be just because we want to make yourself better.

So you sound like you’re team b

Yeah, a little like, but, I think in the real world, actually we have no time to truly develop each one’s interests. In the real world it’s a fierce competitive game. But if we can develop an appropriate attitude, maybe everyone play fairly, maybe competition can be a good thing.

Discussion
But I think that competition makes the gamer more interesting, or more fun to do, like in the Olympics, they are competing for the top three, you can’t keep your eyes away from the screen.

But you need people to play fairly, not cheating and fighting with each other. For example, if a game, everyone play the game just want to win the prize, and by any means you can, it’s easy to cheat others, and then the game just lose its fun.

But I think that competition doesn’t bring up those cheating issues. Because the point is why people compete, is because they want to be satisfied with themselves, and the people they’re concerned with. And I think everyone has their own measurement in their mind, so I winning so I feel happy, but on the other hand if I cheat I probably won’t be happy if I simply work hard. Competition is natural. I don’t think that if there is no competition there would be…I mean, … just don’t think that cheating or other kind of morality issues are secondary, because the point is that they want to be satisfied. So winning is plus, and cheating and winning is minus, so if minus is bigger than plus, so I wouldn’t be worried, because if people just want to enjoy something that other people cannot get, but I think the process is another question. So I think I tend to be a, but not totally a, because I don’t think competition is necessary to improve the world, because it’s just the process by which they can be satisfied with themselves.

I think I’m team d too, because I agree with team a and b but not completely. I agree that competition brings progress, but it also brings aggression. So I think competition is necessary, but not…it depends on its, how to../it’s hard to describe, but I think in some cases, we need competition, just like the commercial, business world, it needs competition, but, I think benign competition is necessary. But the other malignant competition is not necessary for human nature.

What exactly is team d’s position?

Competition is necessary, but we should consider the scale of competition. If the competition have scale from 0 to 10, and the business case must about 7, but in human and human interaction, must be lower to scale 2, I think. It’s an intangible indicator. It’s hard to describe. I want to say competition is necessary, I should say, not based on competition, not human nature.

For example?

Interaction, or…
\
you mean like a conversation? But how about now we are classmates, but one day we talk about business…

business is business but in daily life I think if in daily life conversation if we talk too much competition….

But how about in office and schools, how do you avoid competition.

I think it’s about education.

I think its about attitude. If everyone treat themselves not based on others’ view…

I have no special attitude toward competition. It’s necessary, but too much leads to aggression and not evil, but war? I think Iraq is about competition. So I’m neutral.

You think maybe 0 to 10, you’re…

5. I’m five.

I don’t know, from Maggie’s point I think that people who, in our daily life, we can see some people who love to compete so much.

[general agreement]

people who love to compete have some kind of personality which make you hard to get along with. It usually happens! Those people who love to compete force themselves and force others a lot, so that’s a problem.

But I think it’s a different definition of compete. For myself, I agree with competition, because I define the competition is to, uh, to do something better than others, but not to beat others, just like the definition in this article. So if in this definition a competitive person not always force others, they will only force themselves. So that’s why I emphasize the attitude towards the competition. Because in this article, this article denied the competition because he thinks people who compete always hurt others and lose, do not well in their performance. But I think that’s because they focus to much on how to beat others, how to hurt others, not on how to improve themselves.

That’s right, because I think fanny just reminds me of something, like table tennis training in my high school days, that playing well is different than playing for in. playing well is doing our fundamentals like pull, push, everyone has those standard movements, but some people just like to touch the ball, they just want to win, and the ball just drops in front of the net, and it’s hard to hit, and you lost, finally, so it’s depends on your attitude, you want to get something out of it, or you just want to play for winning.

Just like in tuisho. I found that if you play to push people over, you can’t develop your skill to the highest level.

Some people don’t like to play to win, because of the pressure, they get stomach problems before the competition. But I think, even though I don’t like competition, but I should have the attitude that I’m ready for the competition. Because I think playing well and playing to win are different.

They why do you ready yourself for a competition?

If I’m going to join a competition, and it’s a completely different story, even though I don’t like it, I have to prepare myself, because others don’t have the same mindset as you. So you have to get ready or you’ll lose. Some people will be satisfied, if they go out and play well, but I won’t be satisfied, I don’t like competition, but I don’t like losing.

So if you don’t like competing and don’t like losing, why compete?

I think it’s inevitable. I won’t initiate a competition for myself. I won’t actively win something, I won’t overtake someone in a field, but sometimes, your boss, or your parent want you to win it for them.

Okay, but why do you want to do it for them.

Well, basically I don’t want to win it for them, I want to win for myself, but the point is there’s always some outside pressure, someone who’s a very important in your life wants you to win it.

So isn’t that the problem?

I think that’s the basic situation here. There’s two kinds of competition. There’s the artificial competition, and there’s the one from inside yourself, you want to do it better than others, on your own, for your own satisfaction, and the artificial competition, you do it for others, the others want you do it, but actually they wont say it, but in reality they’ll be more satisfied.

So, isn’t that the bullshit part? you become their proxy!

But they won’t say that.

Of course, but then why do you do it.

Because you want more salary, so you must compete for your boss.

Also the limited opportunity in your world. Just like there are only two apples, and we have fie people, and we all of us need apples to survive, to live better, but there’s only two apples, so we need to compete with the peer to gain the apple.

Why don’t we just use Mary’s fruit knife and cut them up?

But if one person want to gain all of the apples

That’s capitalism

Okay but if we want to share the apple, we need to all have the concepts to sharing. But if only one want to gain all the apples, it push others to join the game.

But there’s five of you if four people want to share, then the other guy has not choice.

But the point is that there’s a hierarchy structure, and the boss has the authority to order you to fight for the apple. To divide the resource, because if you look like…if it seems that you fight hard, you get more apples from him, and you want more. Maybe a whole apple is two large, and you only want .28 of an apple. Actually I don’t like the winner takes all. I’m not pretty sure because I’ve never actually worked at a company. I know that my parents, your parents want you to win, because a lot of parents know…they want you to start well, because it’s their pride so they can talk to their neighbors

Yes, I hate this so much!!
[general agreement]

but we say that you studied for yourself because you can earn money, and get credit

but now I have learned how to ignore their voice to help me to do something for them. because I realize one day, no matter what I done, oh no, no…even though I done the most for them, to satisfy their goals, they have more and more things they expect I to achieve, so then I told myself, just ignore their voice, I just do myself. And I found that because I am their child, no matter what I do, they finally support my decision. So for our parents, I think we can try to change their mind. but for others, like a boss, I think it’s hard not to follow their order.

Yeah, so if, well basically I don’t think competition itself is inhuman, but what we’ve just mention is the inhumane part in competition.

But how do we have competition without all this other bullshit?

What do you mean?

Like without being your parent’s gladiator?

Well, most people can order you around.

But I think, you can choose to be not ordered around. I think freedom is choosing not to listen to people who restrict you.

Okay, with parents, it might be okay, but it’s not okay with other things.

But ultimately you’re the one who’s responsible for your decisions. Sure, it might have bad consequences for you, but ultimately it’s you who chose. So the soldier who’s told to kill a little girl, he ultimately chose to pull the trigger. Sure, if he didn’t, he’d be thrown in jail and lose his job and lose the respect of his buddies, but he can also choose to kill the girl and save himself from all that. Either one, it’s his responsibility.

hmmmm

But I don’t want to hurt my parents, that’s why I listen to them.

You know, it took me a long time to decide not to listen to my parents, but I agree with Angela, it’s your choice, and it’s okay, but remember, that’s your choice, not your parents choice. It’s your choice to follow your parents’ decision. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own life.

I want to go back to the original debate. I think this must be one way to create a game with less bullshit things, but maybe for company, we need to, why those workers like to compete, because the measure to decide how much bonus they get is wrong, is based on their performance, but nowadays more companies change the measure. They measure the work employee can get bonus based on the whole company, not based on individual performance this way people still need to do their best work.

But I have an example that not competition leads to progress. Just like some scientists found some phenomenon, but they don’t want to compete to anyone, they just want to find the true principle of this world. So competition is necessary, but not absolutely be-all and end-all.