Competition

[Hampstead]

If you're completely honest with yourself, life is a competition against yourself. You should strive to do better than previous efforts each time out. If not, just call it a day and sleep the days away until waking is no longer an option.

 

[Three Putt]

You should strive to do better than previous efforts each time out.

This has motivated me to head to the kitchen and strive to make my next White Russian better than the previous effort that I just finished drinking. Thanks, Hamp! :thmbup:

 

[Hampstead]

This has motivated me to head to the kitchen and strive to make my next White Russian better than the previous effort that I just finished drinking. Thanks, Hamp! :thmbup:

 

[Armus Patheticus]

I do not agree with the premises of the above two statements. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss from the outset.

You aren't bright enough to be included in this discussion.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

You're over-thinking it.

Perhaps so.

I ask this question because I've found in my own case that winning feels almost exactly like losing. In fact, I would prefer to not win because I'm not good at responding gracefully to the sour noises the losers make.

I recognize that my viewpoint on this matter is not average or even normal, but that doesn't mean I can't learn anything by thinking or talking about it.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

Competition in recreational activities is just another socially acceptable outlet for the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" drive that underlies much of human activity.

This is the answer I expected to see the most. The problem is that it not useful. To deny our ability to discover or enact practical reasons for our behavior is to limit our so-called evolution to a physiological transformation completely isolated from our static intellectual and spiritual lives.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

If you're completely honest with yourself, life is a competition against yourself. You should strive to do better than previous efforts each time out. If not, just call it a day and sleep the days away until waking is no longer an option.

I don't believe that competition is the best way to describe self-improvement. Have a look at the synonyms.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

With absolutely no type of competition, what incentive is there to do well.

Love, understanding, joy, affection, learning.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

You basically cant get better or move forward in something without beeing alittle competetive.

Untrue.

 

[Hampstead]

I don't believe that competition is the best way to describe self-improvement. Have a look at the synonyms.

It's your word, it's in the thread title. I was just going with it, man. I have no emotional connection to these words that I type.

 

[jeverett]

Ok, the psychology/sociology of games, one of my favorite topics ever!

Behaviorally, there's actually some really important reasons for competition (and other forms of reward-seeking behaviors). First there's the obvious: extrinsic rewards that we 'want' engage the pleasure center of our brains (the nucleus accumbens of the hypothalamus). i.e. acquiring the desired outcome literally feels (via dopamine production) good. So as the good pleasure-seeking monkeys we are, a lot of our behaviors revolve around finding ways to trigger this part of our brains (see sex, drugs, etc.).

It turns out, however, that there's a side-benefit to the pleasurable feeling from reward-seeking success: the pleasure center of our brains is also connected to our long-term memory center! Quite simply, when we are successful at a reward-seeking behavior, the pleasurable feeling also helps activate our long-term memory, which in turn helps us better remember the action(s) that we took that got us the reward in the first place. i.e. we 'learn' more effectively when we are engaging in a reward-seeking behavior.

Now on to games themselves. Lots of social species can be observed engaging in 'play' behaviors, of which games are a sub-set, however game-play is probably exclusively a human behavior. Although the pleasure center of our brains was very clearly adaptive (i.e. it helps direct us toward behaviors that increase our chances of survival and reproduction), it turns out that the system is also fairly easy to 'hack'. i.e. If we make up (through 'play') rewards or outcomes we want to achieve, we can increase the activity in this part of our brain. Side-note: the pleasure center of our brains also has an expectancy regulatory mechanism. The best kind of outcome for activating the pleasure center of our brains is an unexpectedly-positive one. e.g. In disc golf terms, getting the rare birdie. The more that getting that birdie becomes the expected outcome, the less active our brains' pleasure center is when that outcome is achieved. Hopefully it's clear where this is all heading.. if we engineer (through game design) activities which are reward-driven, with the possibility of unexpected (positive) outcomes (that are still reachable), we maximize our brains' pleasure center activity. As the outcomes become more certain/expected, however, we need to continually seek out new challenges that fall into that sweet spot (literally) of difficult but not un-doable.

Ok.. I'm going to stop there.. but if anyone actually wants more on this topic, I have lots and lots of books that I would recommend on the topic!

 

[Armus Patheticus]

It's your word, it's in the thread title. I was just going with it, man. I have no emotional connection to these words that I type.

Howbout a mental connection?
Yes, I used the word because I want to understand it. You are talking about something different than competition.

 

[Hampstead]

Howbout a mental connection?
Yes, I used the word because I want to understand it. You are talking about something different than competition.

Just another primate flinging word poo is all.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

Everett,
What then does it say about my brain that I enjoy the rare birdie less than the common one since I understand it as being a statistical outlier and not as a successful execution of my conscious skills?

Also, do you believe that we have the ability or right to evaluate and amend our behavior?

 

[Spectacledbear]

Untrue.

Don't lie to yourself. It's an integral part of our nature.

 

[jeverett]

Everett,
What then does it say about my brain that I enjoy the rare birdie less than the common one since I understand it as being a statistical outlier and not as a successful execution of my conscious skills?

Also, do you believe that we have the ability or right to evaluate and amend our behavior?

Hi Armus,

That's an interesting topic, and I probably should have included that there are of course multiple ways that we trigger the pleasure center of our brains (i.e. it's not just reward-seeking behaviors that can do it). For example, novelty (i.e. processing new data) is also rewarded in a similar way. This sometimes gets referred to by game designers as "easy fun", while reward-seeking/challenge is referred to as "hard fun". Hard fun is the experience of 'wanting' a particular reward/outcome, while easy fun is the experience of 'liking' the novelty of the experience, input, or data.

What I'm getting at here is that, because we have multiple ways we can trigger this part of our brains, any particular 'pathway' may be weaker or stronger in any particular individual, based on their own particular genetics, development, neurochemistry, etc. e.g. Some people get more 'out' of competition than others. We don't all 'like' the same things, or enjoy playing the same games.

It sounds like you're talking about the concept of 'mastery', which gets discussed a lot in game design, but I haven't actually come across any research on the neuroscience of mastery in games. I'd suspect, however, that there is some pathway to the pleasure center of the brain based around the experience/satisfaction of demonstrating mastery involved.

Interesting question about evaluating our own behaviors. Yes, I would certainly argue that our neural feedback loop does allow for some amount of evaluation and amendment. i.e. We do have some amount of control over our behaviors, and some capacity to change them. You might be interested in topics like 'positive psychology'.. I'm definitely not an expert in that area, but there are lots of resources on the topic. As for 'rights', no, rights are made up, fairy-tale things.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

Don't lie to yourself. It's an integral part of our nature.

I have seen no evidence that this is true.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

As for 'rights', no, rights are made up, fairy-tale things.

Good answer. What about responsibilities?

I am not interested in viewing the mind as a machinist or as a chemist or as a psychologist or any other sort of ist. I'm interested in practicality.

 

[jeverett]

Good answer. What about responsibilities?

I am not interested in viewing the mind as a machinist or as a chemist or as a psychologist or any other sort of ist. I'm interested in practicality.

I'm not sure I entirely follow you here. Your original question seemed to be about the possible utility of competition in recreational activities. My answer was basically that competition in games is one way that we engineer reward-seeking activities that trigger the pleasure center of our brains, and by extension aid in learning. The whole apparatus was originally adaptive, in that it directs actions toward behaviors that promote our likelihood of survival and reproduction. In the context of modern humans, however, it may be something of a 'hack' of that apparatus. i.e. it may not be entirely practical at all, depending as well on whether you'd agree that survival and reproduction is 'the objective' or not.. of course maybe also worth considering is the 'attractiveness' of competition to potential mates. Ever watch a gym full of high-school boys shooting hoops when a girl walks in? The behaviors *totally* change.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I'm not sure I entirely follow you here.

I think that's the whole point of this drivel.