Competition

[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.