Philosophy Now Forum

By some competition is seen as a negative while co-operation as a positive. The opposite view can also be taken, no doubt.

Nonetheless these views seem too simple because, for a start, both can be nested in the same activity. Team competitions (e.g. in sports and the economy) include co-operation of people within the teams.

While competition incentivizes personal improvement, it also reveals who is the most talented at the moment. This information can be used by others to learn the newest techniques from the best which incentivizes mutual improvement.
[I made a short video about this, if you want a face reveal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVFeT2cyG4M]

Additionally, the incentive rewards of competitions can be immaterial, like fame, and the results can include useful inventions and ideas which benefit everyone.

Fair competition with these kind of benefits requires clear rules, which are actually followed. Lack of or failure to enforce these rules might be a source of criticism and likely not the only source either.

So, what are your views on the differences and different uses of competition and co-operation in human affairs?

the benefits of a fair competition is usually a blue ribbon...

if life wasn't a struggle, no one would get stronger- or better

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 5:48 pm the benefits of a fair competition is usually a blue ribbon...

Yes, when it comes to centrally organized competitions with strict rules and small budgets, a trinket is all you might get.

With bigger budgets blue ribbons can be exchanged or augmented with millions in cash! The XPRIZE competitions are a good example of this.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 5:48 pm if life wasn't a struggle, no one would get stronger- or better

Yes, but what is the preferred way to get stronger or better in some particular aspect of life, for instance when struggling against the indifference of nature? By working together with others using shared resources or by competing for undivided access to those resources?

Mr. Civility wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 5:39 pm Nonetheless these views seem too simple because, for a start, both can be nested in the same activity. Team competitions (e.g. in sports and the economy) include co-operation of people within the teams.

Arguably it can go much further than that. It's typical even in war for the combatants who wish to kill each other to also co-operate.

There is advantage (real or percieved) to be gained by breaking some rule of warfare at an unexpected moment, or simply not observing the usual rules at all. An example of the first would be when Charlemagne, having taken 4,500 Saxon prisoners at Verden was supposed to have them baptised into their new faith and then released or sold or recruited, but instead he took them off hte board with a massacre, saving himself future effort, but greatly tarnishing his own reputation and perhaps imperilling his soul. Genghis Khan would be an ideal example of the latter. He saved himself even more time and effort by brutally massacring entire cities that defied him, building pyramids of skulls and sending terrified refugees ahead of his armies to tell everyone in the next town about the importance of prompt capitulation.

My point really though is that by and large, those are outliers. The parties in any war usually know the rules and typically try to work within that boundary of licensed behaviour in order to get their bloody work done. There's some way in which a co-operative approach to warfare benefits both sides, even as one of them faces annihilation.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:24 pm Arguably it can go much further than that. It's typical even in war for the combatants who wish to kill each other to also co-operate.

There is advantage (real or percieved) to be gained by breaking some rule of warfare at an unexpected moment, or simply not observing the usual rules at all. An example of the first would be when Charlemagne, having taken 4,500 Saxon prisoners at Verden was supposed to have them baptised into their new faith and then released or sold or recruited, but instead he took them off hte board with a massacre, saving himself future effort, but greatly tarnishing his own reputation and perhaps imperilling his soul. Genghis Khan would be an ideal example of the latter. He saved himself even more time and effort by brutally massacring entire cities that defied him, building pyramids of skulls and sending terrified refugees ahead of his armies to tell everyone in the next town about the importance of prompt capitulation.

Oh my, such gruesome (but most interesting ) examples of extreme disregard for co-operation. Here are two less gruesome examples of breaking the norm in the opposite direction from WWI.

The famous Christmas truce of 1914 brought peace and jubilation all along the no man's land for thousands of soldiers who decided to exchange the rules of war for singing, playing and not having to worry about been shot at! Too bad it didn't last and the bloody business was back on track in no time.

The second case occurred in 1917 when German and Russian soldiers stopped fighting each other to ally against a new foe: hundreds of ravenous wolves! This change in the usual dynamic was unfortunately also merely momentary for it proved effective as wolf repellent.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:24 pm My point really though is that by and large, those are outliers. The parties in any war usually know the rules and typically try to work within that boundary of licensed behaviour in order to get their bloody work done. There's some way in which a co-operative approach to warfare benefits both sides, even as one of them faces annihilation.

Indeed. Following the Geneva Conventions for instance would allow both sides to lose less troops, civilians as well as infrastructure and allow for more amicable peace talks once the key actors grow tired of military malarkey. Modern conflicts seem for some reason to go against these old wisdoms, though .

sheepishknow wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 4:01 am It is conceivably capable of far more than that. Even in wartime, it is common for warriors who want to kill each other to work together as well.

Yes, I gave a few examples while your comment was under inspection. Do you have some more to share (not excluding other examples of less hostile inclination )?

sheepishknow wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 4:01 am It is conceivably capable of far more than that. Even in wartime, it is common for warriors who want to kill each other to work together as well.

Warriors on each side of a conflict want to work together to kill competing warriors on the other side. This is an example of both competition and cooperation.

Mr. Civility wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 5:39 pm So, what are your views on the differences and different uses of competition and co-operation in human affairs?

Competition favors the competent. Cooperation enhances the mediocre.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 4:53 pm

Mr. Civility wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 5:39 pm So, what are your views on the differences and different uses of competition and co-operation in human affairs?

Competition favors the competent. Cooperation enhances the mediocre.

K: and yet, this is not true... think about it.. human society was/is built
by cooperation than not by competition..

the modern world was not built by competition.. think of the rise of
government... that valuable institution that make us a civilization,
as the Romans were a civilization...
for building roads and having institutions like the State Department
and HUD, department of housing and urban development...
that requires cooperation, not competition.. the very rise of human
beings require cooperation.... the city being one example...
the city begins as a means of protection against animals,
and a way to feed and house ourselves... it is by cooperation
that we are at the top of the food chain.. to build anything,
from a house to a skyscraper to spaceships capable of going to
the moon, all requires cooperation... to move food, clothes,
chairs and books, all requires cooperation, not competition....
and one response might be, but competition made the
supply chain more efficient.... and since when has our
ruling principle been efficiency? much of the most important
things in life, are not very efficient... love and beauty
and music and hope, none of these things are very efficient...
''stopping to smell the flowers'' as many suggest, is not very
efficient.. and yet, it improves our lives... competition is
about creating efficiency.. being more efficient in some
set example....for example delivering the mail or our packages...
and that is nice, but frankly not that necessary.. we will live without
our book from Amazon being delivered in the next few minutes instead
of tomorrow or the next day... in fact, I would suggest that the search
for efficiency has damaged our lives... and that is part of what
the value of competition does... its value lies in creating efficiency...
and I suggest that efficiency is not the value we should be engaged with...
nor is competition a value we should be engaged with...

Now mind you, I was an athlete in High School...and played sports
all during my youth and well into my twenties...I am well aware
of the value of competition... but don't give is more value than it deserves...

and as Nietzsche pointed out, the battle is not to ''win'' in the outside
world, but to learn to become greater, inside of us...
the idea of the Übermensch, is not to win the war or the battles,
but to become a greater human being.. the idea of the Übermensch,
is to conquer ourselves...the competition is not outside of us, but
inside of us...to become who we are... and this is a struggle,
for some, a lifetime struggle... the engagement is inside of us...

or as Socrates said, his motto was, ''to know thyself'' and
''the unexamined life isn't worth living'' and neither one
asks for or engages with competition outside of us...
and the daily competition we get wrong is the pursuit
of trinkets... the pursuit of wealth, or fame or material
possessions, titles or power, that competition is one
that leads to failure... and why are these failures?
because of the payoff.. we get nothing of value when
we become wealthy or famous or have material possessions...
and titles and power? every single thing here is temporary,
short lived... wealth comes and goes, as does power and
titles and fame and material possessions...

I have had titles, so what? they mean nothing.. there is no
advantage to having a title.. as is having material possessions,
we change our cars and couches, and TV sets every couple of years..
we even move quite regularly... and as for power and fame..
both of those are quite brief.. I once had my 15 seconds of fame..
and it wasn't worth anything... it means nothing...

and in the end, we see that cooperation has giving us far better results
than competition ever has... think of every great thing you have had,
and I can bet that you got that by cooperation, not competition...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 7:37 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 4:53 pm

Mr. Civility wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 5:39 pm So, what are your views on the differences and different uses of competition and co-operation in human affairs?

Competition favors the competent. Cooperation enhances the mediocre.

K: and yet, this is not true... think about it.. human society was/is built
by cooperation than not by competition..

the modern world was not built by competition.. think of the rise of
government... that valuable institution that make us a civilization,
as the Romans were a civilization...
for building roads and having institutions like the State Department
and HUD, department of housing and urban development...
that requires cooperation, not competition.. the very rise of human
beings require cooperation.... the city being one example...
the city begins as a means of protection against animals,
and a way to feed and house ourselves... it is by cooperation
that we are at the top of the food chain.. to build anything,
from a house to a skyscraper to spaceships capable of going to
the moon, all requires cooperation... to move food, clothes,
chairs and books, all requires cooperation, not competition....
and one response might be, but competition made the
supply chain more efficient.... and since when has our
ruling principle been efficiency? much of the most important
things in life, are not very efficient... love and beauty
and music and hope, none of these things are very efficient...
''stopping to smell the flowers'' as many suggest, is not very
efficient.. and yet, it improves our lives... competition is
about creating efficiency.. being more efficient in some
set example....for example delivering the mail or our packages...
and that is nice, but frankly not that necessary.. we will live without
our book from Amazon being delivered in the next few minutes instead
of tomorrow or the next day... in fact, I would suggest that the search
for efficiency has damaged our lives... and that is part of what
the value of competition does... its value lies in creating efficiency...
and I suggest that efficiency is not the value we should be engaged with...
nor is competition a value we should be engaged with...

Now mind you, I was an athlete in High School...and played sports
all during my youth and well into my twenties...I am well aware
of the value of competition... but don't give is more value than it deserves...

and as Nietzsche pointed out, the battle is not to ''win'' in the outside
world, but to learn to become greater, inside of us...
the idea of the Übermensch, is not to win the war or the battles,
but to become a greater human being.. the idea of the Übermensch,
is to conquer ourselves...the competition is not outside of us, but
inside of us...to become who we are... and this is a struggle,
for some, a lifetime struggle... the engagement is inside of us...

or as Socrates said, his motto was, ''to know thyself'' and
''the unexamined life isn't worth living'' and neither one
asks for or engages with competition outside of us...
and the daily competition we get wrong is the pursuit
of trinkets... the pursuit of wealth, or fame or material
possessions, titles or power, that competition is one
that leads to failure... and why are these failures?
because of the payoff.. we get nothing of value when
we become wealthy or famous or have material possessions...
and titles and power? every single thing here is temporary,
short lived... wealth comes and goes, as does power and
titles and fame and material possessions...

I have had titles, so what? they mean nothing.. there is no
advantage to having a title.. as is having material possessions,
we change our cars and couches, and TV sets every couple of years..
we even move quite regularly... and as for power and fame..
both of those are quite brief.. I once had my 15 seconds of fame..
and it wasn't worth anything... it means nothing...

and in the end, we see that cooperation has giving us far better results
than competition ever has... think of every great thing you have had,
and I can bet that you got that by cooperation, not competition...

Kropotkin

K: (q.v. above)

C: Let me rephrase.
Competition favors the better competitor. Cooperation enhances the efforts of lesser competitors. This is true.
So both have their value in certain situations.
Modern cities may have been built by means of cooperation, but government contracts are awarded based on competitive bidding.
One may not need the fastest delivery of a book or package, but consumers will gravitate towards the company that delivers fastest. In business, this is called quality or value added.
Competition also builds the better outcomes. Cooperation builds the best outcome possible by a group.
As for efficiency, most would rather not take a medication that is safe but ineffective. So efficiency has value.

commonsense: Let me rephrase.
Competition favors the better competitor. Cooperation enhances the efforts of lesser competitors. This is true.
So both have their value in certain situations.
Modern cities may have been built by means of cooperation, but government contracts are awarded based on competitive bidding.
One may not need the fastest delivery of a book or package, but consumers will gravitate towards the company that delivers fastest. In business, this is called quality or value added.
Competition also builds the better outcomes. Cooperation builds the best outcome possible by a group.
As for efficiency, most would rather not take a medication that is safe but ineffective. So efficiency has value.

K: I don't really think this ''rephrase" really helped you.

for example, the opening statement that ''competition helps the
better competitor'' and next: ''cooperation enhances the efforts of
lessor competitors"

I engaged in competitive sports from age 5 to 25 and participated in
other non-competitive sports into my 40's... I wasn't a great athlete by
any means, thus I was, at best, a second-tier athlete...didn't win much...
team sports require, no, demands cooperation... even if there is a star
athlete.. a baseball or basketball or football team must cooperate
together to win anything...been on those.. and even such individual
sports as running, track/field and cross-country.. which I did,
even those sports require a certain amount of cooperation...which
in track, for example the 440 relay and mile relay, I just aged myself,
where cooperation was vital to winning.. I did run the mile relay...
so, I know the cooperation needed to win that event.....

now the next statement I question is this: ''competition builds for
better outcomes''

the problem being the word ''better'' it can mean any one of a dozen things....
it depends on how one defines ''better''... better for who?
I have worked in big box retail over 20 years including the last
17 with a very well know grocery chain...and they are always talking
about making the store/chain better, but the better they are talking about
is the act of making money, with complete indifference to the employee...
this chase for profits is straight nihilism.. for it dehumanizes and devalues
its employees for profits.. the corporation will pick profits over its workers
every single day and twice on Sundays... every single employee is expendable..
profits first, employees a distant, very distant second.
is that ''better?" is that what you are thinking of? for me, that isn't ''better''
but for a big box corporation, that is better.... who is right?

and now the last question, one of efficiency... I am old and thus, I take a lot
of pills... pills are by their very nature, not very efficient.. they certainly don't
cure you, like most things in the universe, they are, at best,
not 100% effective.. and virtually nothing in this universe is
100% efficient... for examples, most car engines are only between
20% and 40%.. the human body is less than 5% efficient when converting
food into useful work... even doing intense exercise, the muscle efficiency
of a person is only between 18-26%...

the efficiency of the sun is about 0.7% meaning that only about 0.7%
of the mass that goes into nuclear fusion is converted into energy.....

the point of all this is to point out that nature is not very efficient...
and perhaps because of that, we should be more like nature and
accept our inefficiencies... we are, not ever, going to be 100%
efficient in anything we ever do... and raising our efficiency
rate from say, 10% to 12% takes so much work as to be not worth
the effort... a cost benefit analysis of the work it takes to be
as efficient as possible, makes it not worth the effort...
efficiency takes a lot of energy... lots of it.. and that makes
it not really worth it......

Kropotkin

K: according to the examples set forth, competition has no appreciable value, cooperation is therefore valued over competition, and efficiency is not worth the effort…

C: examples of competition at its worst and cooperation at its best do not bely the comparative value of each in a given situation.

An example of cooperation in team sports is football. But it is at the same time an example of competition, because each team member must compete with a member(s) of the opposing team. Each collaborator must carry out an individual assignment effectively against a counterpart on the other team.

Competition in a business, such as a grocery chain, for the sake of greater profit may be viewed as a thing of value because profits grow the economy. The constant battle of quality v. quantity doesn’t absolutely affix greater value to one than the other.

More efficiency is always more valuable than less efficiency, no matter how little efficiency is at hand, as in the case of the sun.

If competition is viewed as capitalist and cooperation as socialist, I’m certain that there are as many pro arguments as con for either competition or cooperation.

Examples of the superiority of one over the other do not preclude the parallel existence of the obverse as well. Allow me to make clear that I am saying that both competition and cooperation have value in certain situations. And if this is not clear to you, I will “agree to disagree”.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 4:53 pm Competition favors the competent. Cooperation enhances the mediocre.

Very punchy and at least partially true. A slouch will get eliminated (such a strong word!) in a competition, but can get a free ride on a team full of competent individuals. Nonetheless, when teams start competing with each other, the external pressure will force each team to find their internal weak links and eliminate them. Thus slouches get no rewards when even a little bit of competition is applied.

"Enhance" is an interesting word choice. if a slouch does get a grip, learn and improve due to external or internal pressure, then the mediocre has been enhanced temporarily or even permanently. This is another reason for the idea that competition can be (and should be) seen as a learning opportunity. Co-operation in a vacuum (school team work assignments anyone?) might not challenge the free riders and then laziness takes over.