Competition

[Armin]

I feel competition is a natural motivation for achieving certain tasks. Other ways to tap into motivation could be better, but it's easier through competition, at least for myself.

[Sidoh]

I can be a judge that waits till the last minute to give rankings, making everybody wait!

(just kidding, I don't want to be a judge -- I think the whole competition idea is silly, why can't everybody who wants to do the photoshopping, and nobody judges them? )

because then it wouldn't be a competition.

go away, hippie!

[iago]

I feel competition is a natural motivation for achieving certain tasks. Other ways to tap into motivation could be better, but it's easier through competition, at least for myself.

In a way -- but competition is more of a motivator for hurting others and being hurt by others. I don't think it hurts to make different pictures and compare them to each other, but when you officialize it (declare a winner or whatever) is where it gets negative, in my opinion.

Either way, I don't care -- I just don't think the competitive aspect is necessary.

[Sidoh]

Negativity is necessary for improvement.  I realize it's not exactly relevant here, but seriously... avoiding negativity so people don't get hurt is stupid.

[AntiVirus]

I feel competition is a natural motivation for achieving certain tasks. Other ways to tap into motivation could be better, but it's easier through competition, at least for myself.

In a way -- but competition is more of a motivator for hurting others and being hurt by others. I don't think it hurts to make different pictures and compare them to each other, but when you officialize it (declare a winner or whatever) is where it gets negative, in my opinion.

Either way, I don't care -- I just don't think the competitive aspect is necessary.

Softy.

[iago]

Negativity is necessary for improvement.  I realize it's not exactly relevant here, but seriously... avoiding negativity so people don't get hurt is stupid.

I don't at all agree with your premise that negativity is necessary for improvement. Are you saying I can't become a better programmer without being told that I suck? Will my biking skills fail to improve after biking to work every day, since I'm not racing somebody? Should I stop writing blogs because I won't get any better unless I'm told that my style isn't as good as another blogger? Negativity isn't necessary for improvement, as you said.

But I agree that in some cases, negativity can contribute to improvement -- if you don't realize you aren't good at something, you might not try to improve. I don't agree, however, that competition is required for that. Me and my friend share pictures of our miniatures, and we'll always assess and critique each other. We don't say "mine's better than yours" or "you aren't as good as xxx"; it's more like "this colour needs improvement" or "your highlighting on the muscles suck" or whatever. Again, that isn't coming from competition, it's simple self improvement.

So yeah, I totally disagree with your premise.

Softy.

Is that bad?

[Sidoh]

Are you saying I can't become a better programmer without being told that I suck? Will my biking skills fail to improve after biking to work every day, since I'm not racing somebody? Should I stop writing blogs because I won't get any better unless I'm told that my style isn't as good as another blogger? Negativity isn't necessary for improvement, as you said.

You're equivocating two interpretations of the word negativity (unknowingly, granted, but that's still what's going on).

Negativity is the realization that you're imperfect in some way.  I'm not talking about the general realization that you're imperfect and that you can never be perfect -- I'm referring to a specific, concrete realization.  For example: "my code is slopy as hell.  This makes it worse than it otherwise would be."

Negativity can be self-realized.  It doesn't have to be influenced by the outside world.  Of course, one might then make the argument: then why compete?  Why not allow people to come to the realization themselves?  I would hope that the response to this argument is obvious: because they might not recognize an imperfection, and may not get the chance to improve in that way.  Even if they do, it makes the imperfection more real -- it makes the person realize that it's not something that people ignore.

Competition doesn't necessarily end at "mine is better than yours".  One could inquire: "why is theirs better than mine?  How could I improve from what I've learned?"  The same sort of criticisms that exist outside of competition are still present in competition.  Competition assigns an ordering and provides much more objective guidance for aspirations.

I'll agree that competition isn't necessary for improvement, but it certainly facilitates it.

[Explicit]

Competition doesn't necessarily end at "mine is better than yours".  One could inquire: "why is theirs better than mine?  How could I improve from what I've learned?"  The same sort of criticisms that exist outside of competition are still present in competition.  Competition assigns an ordering and provides much more objective guidance for aspirations.

Just wanted to quote this for emphasis.

[AntiVirus]

Softy.

Is that bad?

Sometimes.

[iago]

You're equivocating two interpretations of the word negativity (unknowingly, granted, but that's still what's going on).

Negativity is the realization that you're imperfect in some way.  I'm not talking about the general realization that you're imperfect and that you can never be perfect -- I'm referring to a specific, concrete realization.  For example: "my code is slopy as hell.  This makes it worse than it otherwise would be."

Negativity can be self-realized.  It doesn't have to be influenced by the outside world.  Of course, one might then make the argument: then why compete?  Why not allow people to come to the realization themselves?  I would hope that the response to this argument is obvious: because they might not recognize an imperfection, and may not get the chance to improve in that way.  Even if they do, it makes the imperfection more real -- it makes the person realize that it's not something that people ignore.

Competition doesn't necessarily end at "mine is better than yours".  One could inquire: "why is theirs better than mine?  How could I improve from what I've learned?"  The same sort of criticisms that exist outside of competition are still present in competition.  Competition assigns an ordering and provides much more objective guidance for aspirations.

I'll agree that competition isn't necessary for improvement, but it certainly facilitates it.

I think that everything you said as an advantage of competition can be done just as well without, if the person in question is willing to put effort into it. With competition, it's much easier to see your shortcomings, albeit as a more shallow level than with self-realization (opinion ).

So, while I agree that competition can facilitate these things, we can both agree that competition isn't necessary. So, the next point of contention would be: how do the disadvantages of competition weigh with the advantages?

That's obviously a much more personal question, and one that probably isn't worth exploring right now. We're already way off topic on this one. -- but can we at least agree that I'm not totally insane?

Ugh.. how about... One free night at iago's house!  (Traveling expenses not included) 

That's an offer I generally make anyways -- as long as the person doesn't suck. And also doesn't mind sleeping on a couch.

[Sidoh]

I think that everything you said as an advantage of competition can be done just as well without, if the person in question is willing to put effort into it. With competition, it's much easier to see your shortcomings, albeit as a more shallow level than with self-realization (opinion ).

So, while I agree that competition can facilitate these things, we can both agree that competition isn't necessary. So, the next point of contention would be: how do the disadvantages of competition weigh with the advantages?

That's obviously a much more personal question, and one that probably isn't worth exploring right now. We're already way off topic on this one. -- but can we at least agree that I'm not totally insane?

No, I don't think so.  This assumes that people are observant enough to recognize all of their shortcomings.  When this assumption is revealed, I'd hope it seems rather ridiculous.  Someone pointing at a shortcoming is only less profound if the person doesn't take it to heart.  If they do, I think it can be more profound, because there is external motivation to improve.

Competition is necessary for all types of improvements.  I did not say it's always unnecessary.  If a person is unable to recognize an imperfection due to lack of education, refinement, expertise, etc., then self-realization is rarely possible.   I think competition is morally justifiable, and in some cases, I think preventing competition is morally unjustifiable.  If you prevent a person from improving something because you've prevented them from entering a competition, it's possible that their lives will suck more as a result of it.  Competition is an arena for improvement.

It's not necessarily a personal question.  If you're asking yourself the question "Would I rather avoid external criticism at the cost of possibly being unable to recognize my own shortcomings?", then I suppose you could make the argument that it's entirely subjective.

Of course I don't think you're insane.  I entirely disagree with justifying the avoidance of competition so peoples' feelings don't get hurt, though. (Yes, that was an intentional straw man : P).

(Edit: moved this to general so we don't have to worry about being off-topic. .

[AntiVirus]

Lol, when you moved the topic you left out my post responding to iago.  It is just sitting in the original thread not making any sense!

[Armin]

My post was about competition, too... Was it not good enough for you, Sidoh? Losing hurts.

[iago]

No, I don't think so.  This assumes that people are observant enough to recognize all of their shortcomings.  When this assumption is revealed, I'd hope it seems rather ridiculous.  Someone pointing at a shortcoming is only less profound if the person doesn't take it to heart.  If they do, I think it can be more profound, because there is external motivation to improve.

Competition is necessary for all types of improvements.  I did not say it's always unnecessary.  If a person is unable to recognize an imperfection due to lack of education, refinement, expertise, etc., then self-realization is rarely possible.   I think competition is morally justifiable, and in some cases, I think preventing competition is morally unjustifiable.  If you prevent a person from improving something because you've prevented them from entering a competition, it's possible that their lives will suck more as a result of it.  Competition is an arena for improvement.

It's not necessarily a personal question.  If you're asking yourself the question "Would I rather avoid external criticism at the cost of possibly being unable to recognize my own shortcomings?", then I suppose you could make the argument that it's entirely subjective.

Of course I don't think you're insane.  I entirely disagree with justifying the avoidance of competition so peoples' feelings don't get hurt, though. (Yes, that was an intentional straw man : P).

(Edit: moved this to general so we don't have to worry about being off-topic. .

I don't agree with the premise that competition is necessary for improvement. Therefore, the rest of the argument is irrelevant.

I have no issue with pointing out flaws or even competing with yourself (I try to reduce the time I take to ride to work every day by timing myself). What I don't like is when you measure how good you are at something based on how good others are.

If we don't agree with each others' premises, then it's pointless to debate the point. But we can build some strawmen together, if you want. But mine will be better! And kick your strawman's ass!

[Sidoh]

Lol, when you moved the topic you left out my post responding to iago.  It is just sitting in the original thread not making any sense!

My post was about competition, too... Was it not good enough for you, Sidoh? Losing hurts.

You're both full of shit!

No, I don't think so.  This assumes that people are observant enough to recognize all of their shortcomings.  When this assumption is revealed, I'd hope it seems rather ridiculous.  Someone pointing at a shortcoming is only less profound if the person doesn't take it to heart.  If they do, I think it can be more profound, because there is external motivation to improve.

Competition is necessary for all types of improvements.  I did not say it's always unnecessary.  If a person is unable to recognize an imperfection due to lack of education, refinement, expertise, etc., then self-realization is rarely possible.   I think competition is morally justifiable, and in some cases, I think preventing competition is morally unjustifiable.  If you prevent a person from improving something because you've prevented them from entering a competition, it's possible that their lives will suck more as a result of it.  Competition is an arena for improvement.

It's not necessarily a personal question.  If you're asking yourself the question "Would I rather avoid external criticism at the cost of possibly being unable to recognize my own shortcomings?", then I suppose you could make the argument that it's entirely subjective.

Of course I don't think you're insane.  I entirely disagree with justifying the avoidance of competition so peoples' feelings don't get hurt, though. (Yes, that was an intentional straw man : P).

(Edit: moved this to general so we don't have to worry about being off-topic. .

I don't agree with the premise that competition is necessary for improvement. Therefore, the rest of the argument is irrelevant.

I have no issue with pointing out flaws or even competing with yourself (I try to reduce the time I take to ride to work every day by timing myself). What I don't like is when you measure how good you are at something based on how good others are.

If we don't agree with each others' premises, then it's pointless to debate the point. But we can build some strawmen together, if you want. But mine will be better! And kick your strawman's ass!

It is not necessary for all improvement.  I'm arguing that it may be necessary for some kinds of improvement.  Both are messy claims, because examples and counterexamples involve hypotheticals that can easily be interpreted in an alternative manner.

I'm not asserting that there exists an improvement that cannot be made without competition.  I'm postulating that it seems rather incredulous to assert that there exists no improvements that cannot be made without competition.

Competing with yourself is not a relevant form of competition.  The type of competition I'm referring to necessarily involves an external party critiquing your work.  My entire argument points out that it's possible -- and, in fact, very likely -- that you are in some way oblivious to some forms of imperfection.  Comparing your work to the work of others -- especially those who are better at it than you -- is an excellent way to identify areas you can improve in.  Tossing out that as a tool because you don't want to get your feelings hurt is rather silly, I think.

So far, it doesn't seem like you've correctly identified my premises. ; )

[iago]

Lol, when you moved the topic you left out my post responding to iago.  It is just sitting in the original thread not making any sense!

My post was about competition, too... Was it not good enough for you, Sidoh? Losing hurts.

You're both full of shit!

no u

It is not necessary for all improvement.  I'm arguing that it may be necessary for some kinds of improvement.  Both are messy claims, because examples and counterexamples involve hypotheticals that can easily be interpreted in an alternative manner.

Exactly, anecdotal proof != good proof.

I've been wanting to read a book on the danger of competition, and he might have a better argument against it, but that'll have to wait till next time somebody brings it up

I'm not asserting that there exists an improvement that cannot be made without competition.  I'm postulating that it seems rather incredulous to assert that there exists no improvements that cannot be made without competition.

And I disagree.

At least, no useful improvements -- shaving that last millisecond off your 50m run time is probably not going to happen without extrinsic motivators, but that's improvement for the sake of competition and nothing more.

Competing with yourself is not a relevant form of competition.  The type of competition I'm referring to necessarily involves an external party critiquing your work.  My entire argument points out that it's possible -- and, in fact, very likely -- that you are in some way oblivious to some forms of imperfection.  Comparing your work to the work of others -- especially those who are better at it than you -- is an excellent way to identify areas you can improve in.  Tossing out that as a tool because you don't want to get your feelings hurt is rather silly, I think.

I agree that self competition doesn't count as competition, I'm simply introducing it as an alternative. I also have no issue with an external party critiquing your work, based on its own merits. I still don't think measuring your success against others is necessary, though.

So far, it doesn't seem like you've correctly identified my premises. ; )

no u

[Sidoh]

Exactly, anecdotal proof != good proof.

I've been wanting to read a book on the danger of competition, and he might have a better argument against it, but that'll have to wait till next time somebody brings it up

It's an interesting subject.

An anecdote is proof against a general claim.  If you assert that competition is never necessary for improvement, and I give an example of when it is necessary, then it shows that the claim is wrong.

And I disagree.

At least, no useful improvements -- shaving that last millisecond off your 50m run time is probably not going to happen without extrinsic motivators, but that's improvement for the sake of competition and nothing more.

'useful improvements' is a hopelessly vague term.  "improvement for the sake of competition" is also silly.  Just because someone wants to be better than someone else at something doesn't mean that their improvements are objectively justifiable.

I'm very confident that there exist situations where a person is notified of an imperfection through competition that otherwise would've gone unnoticed.  Example: an AI system that does not consider a specific set of cases.  Is it possible that this person will discover these cases for themselves?  Only if they're in some way involved with the motivation for those cases, which is not necessarily the case.

I agree that self competition doesn't count as competition, I'm simply introducing it as an alternative. I also have no issue with an external party critiquing your work, based on its own merits. I still don't think measuring your success against others is necessary, though.

It sometimes works as an alternative.  You've done a rather poor job of demonstrating that it can always serve as an alternative.

[iago]

It's an interesting subject.

An anecdote is proof against a general claim.  If you assert that competition is never necessary for improvement, and I give an example of when it is necessary, then it shows that the claim is wrong.

True.

'useful improvements' is a hopelessly vague term.  "improvement for the sake of competition" is also silly.  Just because someone wants to be better than someone else at something doesn't mean that their improvements are objectively justifiable.

I'm very confident that there exist situations where a person is notified of an imperfection through competition that otherwise would've gone unnoticed.  Example: an AI system that does not consider a specific set of cases.  Is it possible that this person will discover these cases for themselves?  Only if they're in some way involved with the motivation for those cases, which is not necessarily the case.

I don't think improvement for the sake of competition (and nothing else) is worth discussing, because it presupposes that competition is something worth doing. That's why I'd exclude that type of improvement.

With the AI and such, as with all your examples, competition isn't necessary to discover the issues. Testing it, putting it in different situations, getting advice/help/testing from others, and all kinds of other methods could flush it out. There's nothing going on in a competition that's going to be different, at least in that situation.

It sometimes works as an alternative.  You've done a rather poor job of demonstrating that it can always serve as an alternative.

Nor have you. Hooray for defending generalizations!

[Sidoh]

I don't think improvement for the sake of competition (and nothing else) is worth discussing, because it presupposes that competition is something worth doing. That's why I'd exclude that type of improvement.

I'm willing to exclude this type of competition, but I'll add the following caveat: don't assume that just because it exists as a motivation, there are no other motivations.

With the AI and such, as with all your examples, competition isn't necessary to discover the issues. Testing it, putting it in different situations, getting advice/help/testing from others, and all kinds of other methods could flush it out. There's nothing going on in a competition that's going to be different, at least in that situation.

What say they'd never think to subject it to said examples, and that a competition, seminar, etc. is the only way they would ever discover the imperfection?  Even if it is possible, there are obvious cases where it's easier, more efficient, more rewarding, and more beneficial through competition.  Science fairs are a superb example.

Nor have you. Hooray for defending generalizations!

That's the thing: I'm not making a general claim.

I'm skeptical of your claim, and trying to convince you that you should be too.

[truste1]

@iago: I don't think competition is necessarily something that causes hurt or results in hurting others. I do think competition drives you to be better, to push just a little bit more.

Two examples: Basketball and swimming

I play basketball sometimes, and I used too play everyday for awhile. I'd say I'm a better basketball player than my friend that I played with, but he was really competitive when it came to basketball and I didn't really care that much. I wanted to win, sure, but it was just kind of a whatever feeling. His competitiveness allowed him to find a little bit of extra energy to bring the game home.

In swimming it's different. Even when I'm in my workout, I love having somebody next to me because I can "compete" against them. They could be 70 years old, doing breast stroke, doesn't really matter. I try to beat them to the wall. If I'm on the kickboard (I hate the kickboard) I'll wear my legs out trying to beat someone in the next lane to the wall if they're swimming. If I'm alone or nobody is next to me I don't exert as much energy and I really end up getting less of a workout in.