The Rationality of Winning

[softwareNerd]

Is it rational to want to win? Is it rational when the only reason to win is winning, or the bragging rights of having won, or the satisfaction of having won?

For instance, one might want to win a game because the winner will be recognized as having potential, and be selected on a team. One might want to win on American Idol, because the winner gets great contracts. One might want to top one's class for some utilitarian reason. I'm not asking about that type of motivation.

I'm also not speaking of a desire to win at any cost -- nothing like the Kerrigan saga; just an honest desire to win fair and square. Also, I'm not asking why one would want to do something to the best of one's ability. Rather, what is the reason one would want not just to do one's best, but also to win, when the specific win does not lead to any obvious benefit?

Presumably, a good person would want to see other sachieve their best too. Yet, in a competitive situation, one would still want to win. Imagine playing a chess game where one thinks of a draw -- i.e. two perfectly matched champions -- as the perfect outcome from the perspective of either play (assuming no prize money etc. is involved).

Is it rational to want to win "for winning's sake"? If so, why?

[Korthor]

This doesn't directly answer your question, but it gave me the opportunity to quote my favorite film speech, from the movie Patton:

"When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

[Mimpy]

I don't think wanting to win "for winning's sake" accomplishes anything for a rationally selfish individual. If he does win, he gets nothing more than the satisfaction that he is better than everyone else (winning presupposes other people who lose). Wanting to win for winning's sake is then nothing more than wanting to impress people...knowing that they know you're better than them at something. Or even that you know you're better at something than everyone else. But so what? You're better. How does that help? If winning does not yield to something else (like you mentioned), then it is not in one's self-interest to win. It's more a waste of time.

Also, I don't really think wanting to win is very fruitful. I think one should want to do his best...because he can't possibly do more than that. Being the best out of everyone else is a consequence of one performing his best. If you aim only to win, you might not do your best. It is more important to do your best than to win. If you do your best, that yields in personal satisfaction because you know it was impossible for you to do anymore. If you win, you may or may not have done your best. You're left with the knowledge that you beat others...but that knowledge might not provide much more.

[Moebius]

Winning is a way of affirming your abilities to yourself. The desire to win is a better motivator for me personal than to think "I'll just do my best". I don't know what my best is a lot of the time prior to the competition. But when you truly want to win, you're focused on a specific goal, and every ounce of your energy is geared toward it. Sometimes you might even tap into strengths that you didn't know you have.

But I mean, this only really happens when the competition is close, not when you simply dominate the field without trying or when someone is just so much better than you it isn't even worth it.

[aequalsa]

Is it rational to want to win? Is it rational when the only reason to win is winning, or the bragging rights of having won, or the satisfaction of having won?

...

Also, I'm not asking why one would want to do something to the best of one's ability.

Arguably, having a competitor does inspire people to do things to the best of their ability. Training partners at the gym or pacers in a race for example. Whether that is rational or not is another story, but it is generally effective at improving performance. Cooperation on the other hand tends to lead to less effort. There's an effect called social loafing where individuals expend less effort on group projects then they would individually. In one experiment, individuals used 80% of the effort on a team tug-o-war compared to the individual tug-o-war. So I suppose I would say it is rational to use competition to cause yourself to try harder. An individual would have to determine for themselves to what extent this worked for them and whether it was a rational reason.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I don't know if this is a unversal rule, but I know that I get no added satisfaction from beating others. The satisfaction I get isn't even "doing my best." It comes from doing well, and doing good, achieving. The sport I play the most is golf and when I play with my friends in a competitive way, the result of the competition is secondary. If I play well and blow out the field, I am satisfied with my play. If I play well and am beaten by a better competitor, I am satisfied with my play and feel a sense of admiration of the better player and an admiration of the level at which we both played, usually expressed in the phrase: "That was a good game!" If I play horrible and beat an even worse player, I am dissatisfied with my play and the fact that I beat him is no consolation, in fact it would be better if I could admire his good play and salvage an otherwise dissatisfying game.

EDIT:

I think that a rational man is driven by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others. Being the best out of a bunch of mediocre losers is no achievement. The only thing about beating others I can see as being a rational form of enjoyment is if you have a deep respect for the ability of the others you beat, and thier defeat reveals your achievment only in as much and because they are seen by you as being a standard of greatness.

Edited April 24, 2007 by IAmMetaphysical

[DavidOdden]

As I understand the concept, this refers to the desire for there to be no competitors who do as well as or better than you. As such, that's deriving value not based on what you do, but on what others do, which isn't a rational value system. However, there is a close runner-up perspective which does reflect a rational value system. What you ought to do is perform the best that is possible; so if you have competitors of great ability, then the fact that you did better than them is evidence of your abilities. To the extent that a competition give evidence of your abilities, winning a competition is a good thing that you should be proud of.

[DragonMaci]

I don't try to win for the sake of winning. I try to do my best and then try to improve that best. However, in saying that, if something of value is on the line, such as profit, I would want to do better than my opposition, but for the sake of gaining as much value as possible. In such an environment the further ahead I am the more value I get and the further ahead he is the less value I get. For example, if we both have coffee shops, if he does better I have less customers, thus more money, and if do better I have more. I support wanting to win for the sake of gaining value, but not for the sake of winning.

[RationalBiker]

sNerd,

Please tell us whose answer wins when this thread ends.

[aequalsa]

so if you have competitors of great ability, then the fact that you did better than them is evidence of your abilities.

And the reciprocal of that might be helpful too. If you see someone who is better then you, it reinforces the belief that improvement is humanly possible. If it is something which they have achieved, it is not out of bounds to think that with effort you could achieve at least the same level of competency.

[DavidOdden]

And the reciprocal of that might be helpful too. If you see someone who is better then you, it reinforces the belief that improvement is humanly possible. If it is something which they have achieved, it is not out of bounds to think that with effort you could achieve at least the same level of competency.

Exactly: there's nothing wrong with getting beaten by a person of superior ability, as long as you realise that on the rematch, you could be the one in the winner's circle, if you can find a way to shave 1 second off your time.

[Groovenstein]

sNerd,

Please tell us whose answer wins when this thread ends.

I vote for yours.

[Uberzilla]

Is it rational to want to win "for winning's sake"? If so, why?

Strictly speaking ... No

1) blatantly inferior competition

As already partially mentioned in previous posts, there is no context. Say your a 23 year old athletic individual playing tennis with 12 year olds (or some 80 year olds). Not much of a victory.

2) Winning with a sub par effort

Winning when you have not pushed yourself to your best, or to a new level is not very rewarding, as has been pointed out.

3) Unsuitable intellectual appraisal

Another point: what if your victory is a result of an ignorant group of people who are the ones who decide who should be victorious. One of the clearest examples of this was pointed out by Rand in the R-Manifesto - Art. What if people decide abstract smears of paint are better then studied realism.

Should the person who smeared the paint be rejoiced in their victory, or should they be unnerved by the fact that these peoples intellects are inspired by contemplating barely constructed gibberish.

3) What can be gained by losing

As pointed out already; if one is bested by a superior effort by an individual, they can learn from that defeat. If they are bested by an inferior effort, or a fraud, then there is nothing to learn. Well except that people who have no ability to assess something can be fooled; or cheating (performance drugs in sports) works, if winning is your only goal.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Uberzilla

[DMR]

Is it rational to want to win "for winning's sake"? If so, why?

My take: it is not and of itself rational to want to win for winning's sake. However, the desire to win for winning's sake is a convenient conceptual shortcut on the path to having rational desires. In the same way that many people don't steal because it would make them feel bad, although the reason that stealing makes them feel bad is the result of our having evolved emotional predispositions to suit what is best for our natures, the desire to win for winning's sake may more often than not lead people to pursue rational values in such a way that the cognitive economy of not having to determine one's values outweighs the occasional mistakes.

[mrocktor]

You have removed all value from winning, by hypothesis. Therefore, this hypothetical win is of no value. "For winning's sake" is synonimous with "for no reason" in this scenario.