Competition

[Armus Patheticus]

One might say the only justification for making repeated attempts at causing discord in an internet community is fun. They might also suggest such behavior can be addictive.

You could go even further yet and suggest that if it is one's goal to tat everybody's tit, and always get the last word in, and use fluffier language, and leave those who respond to you to surrender to using insults, so you can feel morally superior to them, well...one might say you're engaging in a competition, albeit one you invented in your head.

The discord is built in, as I'm sure you know. Every opinion will be ridiculed, every comment will be questioned, every question will have opposing answers, many bland events will birth outrage. It is not an accomplishment to provoke ninnies.

It is apparently an accomplishment (one outside of my ability) to provoke much thoughful conversation or even basic thought. Welcome to the New World, I've been told.

If you enjoy analyzing my motives, do go on. If you could offer a good faith response to the topic I'm interested in, please do. That's all I want.

So far, basically, the motivations for recreational competition have been figured to be fun and vestigal willy-waving. Are there other possibilities? Is recreational competition a net positive? What negative aspects might exist? How might games exist without competition? How might competition itself change, for better or worse? If competition was removed from your life, how would your habits or outlook change? What might competition be well replaced with? How are people effected by becoming winners? Losers? Which is better, and why?

And so on.

 

[Hampstead]

Garrulous windbag gonna windbag. Ain't that right, too cool for school?

Jumpin' Pathetic Arm it's a gas, gas, gas














Pretty sure you're the only one who cares about your melancholy existence.

 

[Spectacledbear]

Could be OCD.

 

[Alobar]

I know a fox who lives in a hole between some rocks. He does not know God or deny God or act as God. He is cleaner and happier and holier and more beautiful than most people I know.

I was never a member of any old world, and I'm certainly not interested in joining this new one.

The discord is built in, as I'm sure you know. Every opinion will be ridiculed, every comment will be questioned, every question will have opposing answers, many bland events will birth outrage. It is not an accomplishment to provoke ninnies.

It is apparently an accomplishment (one outside of my ability) to provoke much thoughful conversation or even basic thought. Welcome to the New World, I've been told.

If you enjoy analyzing my motives, do go on. If you could offer a good faith response to the topic I'm interested in, please do. That's all I want.

So far, basically, the motivations for recreational competition have been figured to be fun and vestigal willy-waving. Are there other possibilities? Is recreational competition a net positive? What negative aspects might exist? How might games exist without competition? How might competition itself change, for better or worse? If competition was removed from your life, how would your habits or outlook change? What might competition be well replaced with? How are people effected by becoming winners? Losers? Which is better, and why?

And so on.

This a completely serious, honest question:

You ok, man?



.

 

[cheesethin]

...vestigal willy-waving.

I think there is more to it than just surrogate combat or look-how-good-a-mate-I'd-be. Jeverret talked about it up thread, and that's the learning value we can get from competing.*I liken it more to when animal young play fight with each other, this is a learning activity, it is how they develop their skills,*and without the risks of actual combat.*


When we choose to set ourselves up against an opposing force/intent/mind, we get opportunities to learn. How does it/they respond to our actions? How do we respond to theirs? And we get the chance to learn with limited consequences - it is not a life or death situation. Now disc golf may not be the perfect example of this as most of the interaction/competition is with the course and not other people. Something like tennis or judo exemplifies this idea better. But the principal is still in play.


And another aspect of the formal structures we have around competing (signing up for tourneys, leagues etc) is that the structures create/require a sense*of commitment from us, which then translates into focus and narrowed attention. All of which can enhance the learning we get from the experience.


Now, going back to the lion cubs play fighting, while this can be about learning fighting and prey catching skills, it can also be about social dominance and hierarchies. We are social apes,*and so much of our and others behaviours/phycological makeup revolve around where we stand in 'the group'.*


So this aspect can be very present and prevalent in modern day sporting competition. Personally, I hate this aspect of sports. Or rather, I'm totally not interested in spending time with people who feel the ego-need to try and be*socially dominant over others. And who use sports as a vehicle to achieve this.*


I find playing games/sports can be hugely interesting. As a personal learning experience. And as an adventure of exploration, both of myself and of the outside world and others. (But I don't need a willy waved in my face.)

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

Man, what a disgustingly loaded and humorless thread topic. The OP sounds ripe for a trip to Nepal, so he can 'find himself'...sheesh.

 

[Lazerface]

OP seems to think there is no "obvious" utility in competition. I think he's being disingenuous. I'll leave it there.

 

[EarthRocker]

It seems at least theoretically possible that the man is really and truly trying to flesh out some ideas that he's struggling with. To what end, none of us can say. And the bitch of it is that we could have some fun with it, given enough time to address each point he dangles out there...like a willy. Speaking for myself, I simply do not have the time. Tempus fugits like a mofo, yo.

So. The only thing I'll say directly to Mr. Patheticus is that, while I know you don't care, it's counterproductive to call someone a "ninny," or to allude to another's lack of intelligence or ability to understand all your nuance and whatnot. Again, it's a matter of having enough time to really dig in. It's a message board in the Year of Someone's Lord, 2019. Stuff has to move and groove, man. If we're not up to your particular snuff, maybe Mensa is looking for a challenge.

PS - "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." So whatever blows up your skirt...

 

[Suspect]

I play better with better players than myself and vice versa.

I'd also rather play well and lose a round than win and get really f'n lucky.

 

[zontar]

I play better with better players than myself and vice versa.

I'd also rather play well and lose a round than win and get really f'n lucky.

agreed. but I sorta like getting f'n lucky when it drives someone else nuts, too....

 

[Suspect]

agreed. but I sorta like getting f'n lucky when it drives someone else nuts, too....

Well, lucky kicks or pulling a shot out of my ass is one thing.....as long as I improve haha

 

[aphilso1]

So to summarize the last 7+ pages, the individual blasting the community's collective intelligence is the same person who doesn't understand the concept of intrinsic value. Ironic, no?

 

[Armus Patheticus]

So to summarize the last 7+ pages, the individual blasting the community's collective intelligence is the same person who doesn't understand the concept of intrinsic value. Ironic, no?

No not really. Of course that isn't what's happening here. I think I only insulted one individual's intelligence.

Intrinsic is a word that only gets (mis)used in desperation. It's a less embarrassing way to say inexplicable. In fact, it allows you to insult anyone who admits they don't understand something without understanding it yourself.

Dirt has intrinsic value. Tomatoes do too. And jokes. And work. All of these values are recognizable and explainable. If competition has intrinsic value, it can be explained, illustrated, and to some degree, measured. That's where I'm struggling.

 

[aphilso1]

No not really. Of course that isn't what's happening here. I think I only insulted one individual's intelligence.

Intrinsic is a word that only gets (mis)used in desperation. It's a less embarrassing way to say inexplicable. In fact, it allows you to insult anyone who admits they don't understand something without understanding it yourself.

Dirt has intrinsic value. Tomatoes do too. And jokes. And work. All of these values are recognizable and explainable. If competition has intrinsic value, it can be explained, illustrated, and to some degree, measured. That's where I'm struggling.

Dirt and tomatoes are both of instrumental value, not intrinsic. They provide utility (sustenance) but are not things that have a value in and of themselves. Their value lies in the greater good that they produce when manipulated or consumed in some way.

Jokes, however, are a good example of intrinsic value. They provide pleasure and joy in and of themselves. Work has value that is both instrumental (increased GDP) and intrinsic (increased self-worth).

Competitive leisure is indeed intrinsically valuable. But really there's no need to caveat "competitive leisure" at all, because leisure is intrinsically valuable regardless of if it's competitive or not. You've wrapped your head around the wrong part of the mental problem, because while competition can have instrumental value (wargaming, for example), leisure's value is in and of itself.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

Dirt and tomatoes are both of instrumental value, not intrinsic. They provide utility (sustenance) but are not things that have a value in and of themselves. Their value lies in the greater good that they produce when manipulated or consumed in some way.

Jokes, however, are a good example of intrinsic value. They provide pleasure and joy in and of themselves. Work has value that is both instrumental (increased GDP) and intrinsic (increased self-worth).

Competitive leisure is indeed intrinsically valuable. But really there's no need to caveat "competitive leisure" at all, because leisure is intrinsically valuable regardless of if it's competitive or not. You've wrapped your head around the wrong part of the mental problem, because while competition can have instrumental value (wargaming, for example), leisure's value is in and of itself.

Instrumental and intrinsic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is very little if any difference between the two. Every intrinsic value is also instrumental (unless you're using some specialized jargon I'm not familiar with). Again, "in and of itself" is only a way to say "it is because it is."

I appreciate your thoughtful post but let me try to illustrate what I mean. The practical value of dirt is intrinsic because it depends on the nature of dirt. Jokes only have value if they are manipulated or consumed in some way. In fact, it could be said that dirt is much less of an "instrument" than a joke, since it is providing value constantly, no matter what, without any need for conscious manipulation, while a joke not only has a narrow scope (human) but is worthless unless used. Increased GDP and increased self-worth are equally concrete, practical (though neither is automatically intrinsic of work). Maybe I just can't understand the nuance of these words. That's not really important though, because either way, I want an explanation of competition's value, intrinsic or otherwise. Saying "it's intrinsic, don't you get it?" isn't really helpful.

I haven't tackled the wrong part of the problem because I'm not trying to understand leisure. I'm trying to understand competition.

Without being overdramatic, I believe I recognize several ways in which competition is negative or dangerous. I have always felt that way, but unthinkingly ignored those negatives because I assumed they didn't apply to me or were outweighed by positives. I was never super-competitive to begin with, but once I started studying the effects of economic competition I recognized some similarities to sport and games. Also, in the process of increasing some various skills, I found myself often being a "winner" when I had been a "loser" or "contender". This was not rewarding to me, so I began to doubt the value of a system based on striving for something that is not worth striving for.

 

[Hyzflip10]

I see guys on here play both sides of the fence. They claim they are playing it for a competitive activity, but when they get their asses kicked they play the "its a social game, what is wrong with that guy card (Looking at you, Ru4por).

Some people play it strictly as a recreational activity, some play it as a competitive game, and most play it somewhere in between.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

"Conan, what is best in life?"

I myself am often willfully obtuse and have played the game of asking for advice/opinions only to 'discount' them when offered.

There is no mystery here OP and life is not a campfire sing-a-long, no matter the padding in your cell. You already know these answers, perhaps wishing the truth were untrue. Look in the mirror and clean away your mental grease and grime. You are very fortunate to live in a place/time where there are many games to play and where conditions are not so extreme, allowing you to consider the windmills of your mind in your spare time...

OR in the immortal words of the almighty GWAR: "rid yourself of all the worthless crap in which you wallow - here's an iron fist of death for you to swallow"

 

[aphilso1]

Instrumental and intrinsic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is very little if any difference between the two. Every intrinsic value is also instrumental (unless you're using some specialized jargon I'm not familiar with). Again, "in and of itself" is only a way to say "it is because it is."

I appreciate your thoughtful post but let me try to illustrate what I mean. The practical value of dirt is intrinsic because it depends on the nature of dirt. Jokes only have value if they are manipulated or consumed in some way. In fact, it could be said that dirt is much less of an "instrument" than a joke, since it is providing value constantly, no matter what, without any need for conscious manipulation, while a joke not only has a narrow scope (human) but is worthless unless used. Increased GDP and increased self-worth are equally concrete, practical (though neither is automatically intrinsic of work). Maybe I just can't understand the nuance of these words. That's not really important though, because either way, I want an explanation of competition's value, intrinsic or otherwise. Saying "it's intrinsic, don't you get it?" isn't really helpful.

I haven't tackled the wrong part of the problem because I'm not trying to understand leisure. I'm trying to understand competition.

Without being overdramatic, I believe I recognize several ways in which competition is negative or dangerous. I have always felt that way, but unthinkingly ignored those negatives because I assumed they didn't apply to me or were outweighed by positives. I was never super-competitive to begin with, but once I started studying the effects of economic competition I recognized some similarities to sport and games. Also, in the process of increasing some various skills, I found myself often being a "winner" when I had been a "loser" or "contender". This was not rewarding to me, so I began to doubt the value of a system based on striving for something that is not worth striving for.

Agreed that intrinsic and instrumental value are not mutually exclusive. I stated as such above with regards to the value of work.
Your views are not unique. They are shared by some very intelligent philosophers (Korsgaard and Dewy, for example), but frankly that line of thinking has always seemed intentionally ignorant to me. And I don't mean ignorant as in uneducated, I mean it as in ignoring what is readily apparent and overwhelmingly accepted, but unprovable.
Joy is good. Self-efficacy is good. Pleasure is good. But regardless of how hard people try, they can't "prove" that they are. Items and activities that are intrinsically valuable have a direct connection to good. A sunset or sunrise, for example. While there is indeed an instrumental value as well (warming or cooling the earth), most people would readily agree that the beauty of a sunrise is valuable for its own merit. If you're in the Dewey camp, then I recognize there is no way to convince you of this. But again, my opinion is that that is just willful ignorance.
Competitive leisure is intrinsically valuable in the same way that a picture of a deceased relative is. To someone who enjoys it for its own sake, it is good. But to someone who doesn't, it's not. You can look at a picture of a deceased grandmother and receive joy; if I look at your grandmother's picture I won't. That doesn't make the picture any less intrinsically valuable, just because I don't appreciate it. But it does mean that I personally won't keep a picture of your grandma in my house. And just because you don't enjoy competitive leisure, doesn't mean that others don't enjoy it. But it does mean that you probably shouldn't waste your time pursuing it.

 

[Geer_Boggles]

Explain the right function of competition in recreation. It seems clear that competition serves different purposes, for example biological competition existing as a law of supply and demand serves to equalize and harmonize, while competition as an economic principle serves to disintegrate and divide. I cannot come to any solid conclusion about the need for, purpose, or propriety of competition as a form of leisure. Is it a diseased extention of our national religion of ego-materialism? Is it a useful cultural process?

Just wanted to check in with you and remind you that it is not a competition for smoking the most pot prior to a post.:thmbup:

 

[Geer_Boggles]

To actually chime in on the discussion though, competition for the sake of competition is not so hard to comprehend. There are those who have a love for competing while knowing victory is all but impossible. It is a reason to strive to be better and to do better vs. just playing against yourself.

Have you never felt the need to be better at something or prove to yourself you are not the worst at something? Regardless of the activity, that is a competition in the form of "leisure" as you put it.