Competition

[Joynewyeary]

Consider the following words of Dr. Stadler in Atlas Shrugged:

Miss, Taggart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater?  It's resentment of another man's achievement.  Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own--they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top.  The loneliness for an equal--for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire.  They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them--while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them.  They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors.  They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear.  They have no way of knowing what he feels when surrounded by inferiors--hatred?  no, not hatred, but boredom--the terrible, hopeless, draining, paralyzing boredom.  Of what account are praise and adulation from men whom you don't respect?  Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire?  For something, not to look down at, but up to?

This passage seems to raise some fundamental issues of ethics and psychology. One problem with competitive situations is that they motivate some people to use dishonorable methods of competing, but that isn't the issue that is raised in the above passage.

Maybe the connection between competition and free enterprise tricks some people into thinking that there is something necessarily good about competition.

Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?

[Eric Mathis]

Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?

For me, coffee in the morning is a worthwhile goal. Within a one-mile radius of my home, there are over a dozen vendors of this aromatic and reviving beverage. Each of these vendors strives to win me and others as customers. Those that do this efficiently (i.e. quality product, attractive price, ease of purchase, service with a smile, etc.) thrive. Vendors that are inefficient close down. Success in business (increased profits) motivates all who enter the field. What’s imperfect about this method?

[JMeganSnow]

What?

No, seriously, what?

In what way is competition a flawed model? It is an ACCURATE model for the way things work in reality. Competition is not a cause. It is not a motivating factor. It is an effect. It is a result of, say, two people deciding to go into the same business, or apply for the same job, or work on the same scientific principle. One does not choose to engage in something in order to compete, one does it because one wishes to gain a value. A rational individual understands that, in order to gain a value, one must put forth a commensurate effort. Putting forth the effort by no means guarantees that one will achieve that particular value, but it is the only way to do so.

The only possible motivations one could have for using dishonorable methods are: a wish to gain a value (to compete) without having to put forth the required effort; i.e. a desire for the undeserved, or a desire for a guarantee of success. Since the first means that someone ELSE has to pay to support YOU, it makes you a parasite on the blood of others, since the second is a metaphysical impossibility, it puts you at odds with reality. Neither will permit you to live.

[Joynewyeary]

For me, coffee in the morning is a worthwhile goal.  Within a one-mile radius of my home, there are over a dozen vendors of this aromatic and reviving beverage.  Each of these vendors strives to win me and others as customers.  Those that do this efficiently (i.e. quality product, attractive price, ease of purchase, service with a smile, etc.) thrive.  Vendors that are inefficient close down.  Success in business (increased profits) motivates all who enter the field.  What’s imperfect about this method?

Reading my question in context, it should be clear that I was using the term "associated with" in a specific sense. In that sense, the competition of the vendors does not constitute a competitive situation associated with your goal. If you want to discuss the competition between vendors, then the relevant goal is the goal of a vendor, not your goal.

The mere fact that more than one vendor serves a given population of potential customers means that there is a theoretical economic competition. However, an individual vendor's goal of selling coffee doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any competitive aspiration. A vendor doesn't have to know or care that other vendors exist. An individual vendor whose goal is to earn money by providing good service is an individual vendor who is already motivated even if that vendor has no theoretical economic competitors.

[Joynewyeary]

What?

No, seriously, what?

In what way is competition a flawed model?  It is an ACCURATE model for the way things work in reality.

I used the word "method", not "model".

Competition is not a cause.  It is not a motivating factor. 

Competition is a motivator in many sporting events, for example.

One does not choose to engage in something in order to compete, one does it because one wishes to gain a value. 

You are arguing my point for me. To gain a value is the goal. A competitive situation may be created in an attempt to motivate participants to gain the value. For example, to motivate people to learn to make good chess moves, one might get them to play against each other.

Now, suppose a player deliberately uses a move that is powerful if the opponent doesn't know how to respond to it, but that is weak if the opponent does know how to respond to it. A player may choose to exploit knowledge of an opponent's ignorance in preference to making an objectively better move. That doesn't seem dishonorable to me. It just demonstrates that giving someone a desire to win is an imperfect method for getting someone to make good moves.

Of course, there are dishonorable methods for winning. For example, someone who has a good command of the rules might regularly make illegal moves, withdrawing them when the illegality is pointed out, but never initiating a withdrawal of an illegal move. That might merely be a matter of negligence and never a deliberate effort to make an illegal move, but it would still be dishonorable.

[JMeganSnow]

I used the word "method", not "model".

And I used the word "model", correctly, I might add. Competition is not methodology. It is a model for the activities of men in a free society.

Competition is a motivator in many sporting events, for example.

No, it is not. Competition is the VENUE of ALL sporting events, it is not the MOTIVE of sporting. The rational motive for sporting is to achieve one's personal best at some activity. The only way to give some kind of objective meaning to that "best" is to compare single instances with other instances. In a society of rational men, there is an enormous value to be gained, admiration and praise, for offering one's achievement to the eyes of one's fellows.

You are arguing my point for me.  To gain a value is the goal.  A competitive situation may be created in an attempt to motivate participants to gain the value.  For example, to motivate people to learn to make good chess moves, one might get them to play against each other. 

I am not arguing your point for you. Any chess player could tell you that you don't learn to play chess by playing against other people. You learn by studying the foundations of chess. Playing against other people is helpful only because it makes it easier to start with concretes; most people can't look at a list of "Black: King's pawn to 14, White: Queen's Rook to 37, takes Bishop" right off the bat and be able to visualize the board, observe the development of strategy, etc. You have to start with the concretes and move to the abstractions.

The credo of a first-handed man is "I can do it" not "I can do it better than you." If you are motivated by competition, i.e. your motive is not to gain a value but to defeat an adversary, your motive is destruction instead of achievement, then you no longer have anything to gain from life. What, then, is the purpose of your competition?

This is the source of the view that life is a "rat race" and that you have to "claw your way to the top" by "climbing on corpses". It is not a model that reflects reality, and hence your questions on it's value as a "method" are null and void.

[Joynewyeary]

And I used the word "model", correctly, I might add. 

Look, you asked three questions:

What?

No, seriously, what?

In what way is competition a flawed model?

The first two seem to emphatically ask what it was that I meant to say. Your third question has the format "In what was is competition an [adjective] [noun]?"

I took that to mean that you thought that I had asserted that competition is an [adjective] [noun].

Here you are replying to "Competition is a motivator in many sporting events, for example":

No, it is not.  [...] The rational motive for sporting is to achieve one's personal best at some activity. 

I guess you're going to tell me that you used the word "rational" correctly here. This discussion is a little confusing. If I said that -5 is an integer, perhaps you would respond as follows: "No, it is not. Negative five is not a positive integer and I used the word 'positive' correctly here."

Any chess player could tell you that you don't learn to play chess by playing against other people. 

Okay, let's assume that you're right about that and that I was wrong. How does this relate to the issue that we are discussing? Did you make an effort to figure out the point that I was trying to make? You emphasized the word "learn" as the outrageous part of my statement, so what happens if one eliminates that word? How would you respond to the following?

You are arguing my point for me. To gain a value is the goal. A competitive situation may be created in an attempt to motivate participants to gain the value. For example, to motivate people to make good chess moves, one might get them to play against each other. "

If you are motivated by competition, i.e. your motive is not to gain a value but to defeat an adversary [...]

Again, you seem to be arguing my point for me, but I'm not impressed by the style of the rest of your words there, so I will omit them. Do you really claim that actual sporting competitions are in fact rarely or never designed to motivate a given athlete to defeat the adversary? Let's consider competitive running events. Do all participants who complete a race within a specified time get a gold medal or does the gold medal only go to the runner who completes the race first--and in fact, go to that runner regardless of how long, in absolute terms, it takes the runner to complete the race?

Edited May 7, 2005 by Joynewyeary

[JMeganSnow]

I took that to mean that you thought that I had asserted that competition is an [adjective] [noun].

I was simply rejecting outright that competion is a method for anything; it is a model, hence the nature of my question.

Okay, let's assume that you're right about that and that I was wrong.  How does this relate to the issue that we are discussing?  Did you make an effort to figure out the point that I was trying to make?  You emphasized the word "learn" as the outrageous part of my statement, so what happens if one eliminates that word?[adjective] [noun].

"Motivate people to make good chess moves" is equivalent to "teach them to play chess well", unless you're operating in a substantially different universe of thought, here. Teaching someone to do something, much less do it WELL is not accomplished by throwing them in and seeing whether they sink or swim. You cannot even consistently teach people to SWIM like this. All you can do is root out the people who drown.

Do you really claim that actual sporting competitions are in fact rarely or never designed to motivate a given athlete to defeat the adversary?  Let's consider competitive running events.  Do all participants who complete a race within a specified time get a gold medal or does the gold medal only go to the runner who completes the race first--and in fact, go to that runner regardless of how long, in absolute terms, it takes the runner to complete the race?

Would the atheletes compete without some value they wish to gain at the end, the gold medal? It is the gold medal that is the motivator, and NOT the other atheletes. The other atheletes may set the terms of the effort you must put forth in order to obtain the gold medal, but they do not MOTIVATE you, they are not the purpose of your effort.

If competition is, as you say, a method of motivating people, of getting them to act, then I suggest you try the following experiment:

Go up to a pair of people on the street and say: "Will you two guys beat the snot out of each other to see who's the best?"

"Do we get a prize?"

"No, you just get to see who's the best."

"But . . . why? I mean, this is my buddy. I don't want to beat the snot out of him."

"You'll be competing! Doesn't that motivate you?"

"Um, no.

Now, there are SOME people (second-handers) whose self-esteem is entirely determined by who they can "beat"; as long as they're "better than" other people they're happy. SO, they might be willing to fight for no other reason than to see who is the best, however, if you pay attention they won't do it unless they're pretty sure already that they are the best. So it's not competition that motivates them, but the thought of being able to look down at their opponent.

Like I said, competition is an effect, not the cause, and a motivator is a cause. It's attempting to gain some value, whether real or percieved, that's the cause, and thus the motivator.

[Joynewyeary]

You asserted that competition "is not a motivating factor."

I attempted to construct a counter-example to that assertion. If we are both looking for the truth in this discussion, then we should both be considering the question: "Is there a counter-example to that assertion?"

You knocked down my attempted counter-example, yourself emphasizing--as objectionable--one part of that attempted counter-example. So you could have tried to construct your own counter-example by yourself eliminating what you emphasized as objectionable.

"Motivate people to make good chess moves" is [not] equivalent to "teach them to play chess well", unless you're operating in a substantially different universe of thought, here. 

Where did I assert or insinuate that doing something is equivalent to learning to do it?

I strongly suspect that you wrote the above statement while yourself motivated by the desire to defeat me, your adversary, in this discussion.

Earlier, you wrote this:

If you are motivated by competition, i.e. your motive is not to gain a value but to defeat an adversary, your motive is destruction instead of achievement, then you no longer have anything to gain from life.

Do you no longer have anything to gain from life?

You still haven't responded to this:

You are arguing my point for me. To gain a value is the goal. A competitive situation may be created in an attempt to motivate participants to gain the value. For example, to motivate people to make good chess moves, one might get them to play against each other. "

[Joynewyeary]

Would the athletes compete without some value they wish to gain at the end, the gold medal?  It is the gold medal that is the motivator, and NOT the other athletes. 

I see that you answered my question with a question. I suppose it is possible that an athlete might melt down the gold and sell it as gold. However, the main value of the medal is prestige value and the meaning of it is that some particular competing athletes were defeated.

If we were talking about silver and bronze Olympic medals, then there would be no question about it. Those metals aren't valuable enough for someone to value the medals for the metal.

[JMeganSnow]

Where did I assert or insinuate that doing something is equivalent to learning to do it?

Do you mean, you can do something without learning to do it? The example you offered is that of someone wanting someone else to make good chess moves. This implies that the second person doesn't already know how to make good chess moves. Since the "goodness" and "badness" of a chess move is determined by how well it serves its purpose, making good moves is the equivalent of learning to play chess better.

You did not say that doing something is the equivalent to learning to do it, you provided a specific example in which the activity being conducted was a process of learning to do something. Operating from your example, I identified the basic principle you were asserting; that this learning is accomplished by means of competition, which is erroneous.

[JMeganSnow]

I see that you answered my question with a question.  I suppose it is possible that an athlete might melt down the gold and sell it as gold.  However, the main value of the medal is prestige value and the meaning of it is that some particular competing athletes were defeated. 

This statement begins by arguing that the only source of value is material goods, and then by saying that prestige, which is non-material, is a value. Which is it?

I dislike argument-by-example (which I say frequently) because, among many reasons, one can cherry-pick the examples which fit, approximately, one's view of existence. Here is a counter-example to demonstrate this:

Two men desire the same woman, so they both pursue her.

Now, your view of competition as a method of motivating people would indicate that, in this case, they would have increased motiviation to pursue her in order to defeat their "adversary". In reality, though, this is not the case. The existence of a competitor may actually decrease their desire for this particular woman. Why? Because in order to attain her they must put forth a greater effort. If they don't think she's worth that extra effort, they may bow out of the competition altogether and put their energy to work at attaining some other goal.

Competition remains an effect of action and will not ever become the cause of action. It is those individuals that attempt to replace causes with effects that cause the evils you have attributed to competition.

[Joynewyeary]

This statement begins by arguing that the only source of value is material goods [...]

How did you get that out of my statement? I thought it was pretty clear. First I acknowledged that a gold medal does have some intrinsic value, but then I asserted that the prestige value is much greater than the intrinsic value.

Two men desire the same woman, so they both pursue her.

Now, your view of competition as a method of motivating people would indicate that, in this case, they would have increased motivation to pursue her in order to defeat their "adversary".  [...]

Okay, apparent I asked the wrong question. At the very beginning of this thread, I asked:

Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?

I now ask:

Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and deliberately constructed competitive situation associated with that goal for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?

Edited May 8, 2005 by Joynewyeary

[Joynewyeary]

The example you offered is that of someone wanting someone else to make good chess moves.  This implies that the second person doesn't already know how to make good chess moves. 

I would have thought the opposite. If someone doesn't have a capacity, then no motivation will be sufficient to evoke good performance any time soon. If I am trying to motivate someone to perform skillfully and I offer some incentive, then I probably already have reason to believe that the person has the capacity.

[Eric Mathis]

Reading my question in context, it should be clear that I was using the term "associated with" in a specific sense.  In that sense, the competition of the vendors does not constitute a competitive situation associated with your goal.  If you want to discuss the competition between vendors, then the relevant goal is the goal of a vendor, not your goal.

I don't follow you. It is only because I (and hundreds of other coffee drinkers) have the goal of getting a fresh cup of coffee that there exists a group of competitors. Yes, the goal of the vendor is his profit, not my coffee. But without the demand for coffee there would be no vendors, no competition, and no profit in providing coffee.

The mere fact that more than one vendor serves a given population of potential customers means that there is a theoretical economic competition.  However, an individual vendor's goal of selling coffee doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any competitive aspiration.  A vendor doesn't have to know or care that other vendors exist. An individual vendor whose goal is to earn money by providing good service is an individual vendor who is already motivated even if that vendor has no theoretical economic competitors.

That's right. A restauranteur who is motivated to sell a cup of coffee for $20 does not have to pay any attention to what other restaurants are charging for their coffee. On the other hand, those restaurants which do pay attention to competition will tend to want to improve both product and service, which works to the advantage of my goal of getting a tasty and affordable morning beverage. Ergo, competition benefits the consumer.

[Iakeo]

...

Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?

OK,.. I see one (1) question from you: "Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal

and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an

imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?"

Your question is muddled and confusing, if you mean it seriously. It's a

clever "open ended question" which seeks to elicit some sort of "fight or flight

response" otherwise (if it's NOT a serious question).

So,.. what is your REAL question? Is it, "Is any and every competitive situation

anything but an excuse to use an imperfect (undefined) method

('fighting'/competition) to motivate people?"

Please state your question as a sensible question. Thanks much buckeroo..!!

-Iakeo

[Joynewyeary]

A restauranteur who is motivated to sell a cup of coffee for $20 does not have to pay any attention to what other restaurants are charging for their coffee.  [...] my goal of getting a tasty and affordable morning beverage.  Ergo, competition benefits the consumer.

I'm not sure that your point is on topic, but it is interesting. If I understand you correctly, your point is that we have to consider not just quality, but also price. Suppose we assume that good people will be motivated to provide a quality product or service regardless of whether or not they have competitors. We still have the problem that, if there are no competitors, then the product or service may be extremely expensive.

[Eric Mathis]

I'm not sure that your point is on topic, but it is interesting.  If I understand you correctly, your point is that we have to consider not just quality, but also price.  Suppose we assume that good people will be motivated to provide a quality product or service regardless of whether or not they have competitors.  We still have the problem that, if there are no competitors, then the product or service may be extremely expensive.

The point is we cannot "assume that good people will be motivated to provide a quality product or service regardless of whether or not they have competitors." That is simply not the way human beings work. If it were true that people work purely for the joy of doing a good job, then the Soviet Union would have been a splendid success. In the absence of competition, the highly motivated comrades of the USSR would have produced automobiles, home appliances, electronic goods, and clothing as good as anything made in the US.

[end game]

I'll refer to your original question with an example.

A company I know of develops and obtains patents for a certain product. They then sell the product to the Defense department. The Defense department then puts the item out for a bid and another company wins the bid. They then start making the same item. The original company protests because of the patents and investment in the development of the product. The gov't responds that under the rules a company does not have to follow patents when the item is being purchased for use by the gov't.

So, under these terms, competition takes the position of the looter advocated by the mother of all looters. The goal was forfeited in the name of competition. Who really benefited from this action considering the firm that got the contract was eventually sued and put out of business because they sold the seconds to a private liquidator.

[Iakeo]

I'll refer to your original question with an example.

A company I know of develops and obtains patents for a certain product.    They then sell the product to the Defense department.      The Defense department then puts the item out for a bid and another company wins the bid.    They then start making the same item.  ...  The gov't responds that under the rules a company does not have to follow patents when the item is being purchased for use by the gov't.

So, under these terms, competition takes the position of the looter advocated by the mother of all looters.  ...

You said that the rightful patent holder sells "the product" to the government, not

rights (license) to the patent, which implies that no transfer of the right to

manufacture the item has changed hands.

How does the government have the right to allow a non-licensee to manufacture

the item?

Your statement that "the government doesn't have to follow patents when the item

is being purchased for use by the government" is either total nonsense, or a

mistatement of what you think you meant.

And "competition" is not an entity. It can't be a "looter" any more than the "color

blue" can be a looter.

So,.. once again,.. would somebody PLEASE pose statements (or questions) that

make sense..!

-Iakeo

[end game]

Let me make this more clear. A company develops a product and then sells the product to the government which then before purchasing puts the item out for bid.

Now lets add this from the USC concerning purchasing:

52.227-5 Waiver of Indemnity.

As prescribed at 27.203-6, insert the following clause:

Waiver of Indemnity (Apr 1984)

Any provision or clause of this contract to the contrary notwithstanding, the Government hereby authorizes and consents to the use and manufacture, solely in performing this contract, of any invention covered by the United States patents identified below and waives indemnification by the Contractor with respect to such patents:

_______________________________________________

[Contracting Officer identify the patents by number or by other means if more appropriate.]

So, your assumption is wrong on all accounts. I deal with this quite frequently, therefore, I have some idea what I am talking about.

Joynewyeary original post:

"This passage seems to raise some fundamental issues of ethics and psychology. One problem with competitive situations is that they motivate some people to use dishonorable methods of competing, but that isn't the issue that is raised in the above passage.

Maybe the connection between competition and free enterprise tricks some people into thinking that there is something necessarily good about competition.

Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?"

I provided a example based upon the premise. If you fail to see that then that is your problem.

[BurgessLau]

Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?

I have read all your posts -- or tried to -- and I can't find a definition of "competition." Have I missed it?

One way or the other, would you provide a formal definition of competition? It is a key concept in your topic.

[Iakeo]

Let me make this more clear.    A company develops a product and then sells the product to the government which then before purchasing puts the item out for bid.

Now lets add this from the USC concerning purchasing:

52.227-5 Waiver of Indemnity.

As prescribed at 27.203-6, insert the following clause:

Waiver of Indemnity (Apr 1984)

Any provision or clause of this contract to the contrary notwithstanding, the Government hereby authorizes and consents to the use and manufacture, solely in performing this contract, of any invention covered by the United States patents identified below and waives indemnification by the Contractor with respect to such patents:

_______________________________________________

[Contracting Officer identify the patents by number or by other means if more appropriate.]

...

So what has the "governement" (entity) bought..!!?

Did they buy (X number of) items, or the rights to have others manufacture the

item..!?

If they bought bought ITEMS, then by what right do they put out requests for bids

to manufacture this item?

If they bought the rights to put out RFP's to manufacture this item, where's the

problem..!!!?

Now,.. PLEASE make some sense with what you're trying to communicate, or

expect to be ignored as a crank.

Thanks again for the intruiging word puzzle, dude.

-Iakeo