I recall back in college that the board game Risk was popular among my acquaintances. I was an indifferent player but there were a few people who were very competitive and would actually trash talk about the game.
For some reason I became annoyed when a loudmouth said that I shouldn’t be playing in a game with him. I decided to take him down and announced that he would go out first. I did that, just destroyed his army and the other players piled on when they saw what was happening. I went out next but after that no one wanted to play with me
I think being competitive has to do with self esteem and social recognition.
On the one hand if an individual is valued primarily through what they achieve then it fits that they will chase achievement in order to feel valued.
Similarly, if an individual is not self confident / self satisfied, it fits that they derive their view of self through the eyes of others / social recognition.
I think being competitive is a means to an end rather than the end itself.
That is an interesting point. It makes sense to me to consider it through those terms. I wonder if competition or ambition is the driver of accomplishment, or a combination of both. Ambition doesn't necessarily provide social recognition, however. It can be looked upon as negative, while competition tends to hold a more positive place in people's minds.
I think drivers for accomplishment itself are slightly different to drivers for competitiveness. There are so many personalities, so many backgrounds and life experiences to consider that drivers for accomplishment are likely quite varied.
Assuming natural talent/ intelligence and access to opportunities are all equal, I actually think one of the key drivers for accomplishment is often adversity. Adversity in its broadest sense. Take famous soccer players for example, the likes of Ronaldo being one, he came from a poor background. The driver might have been the desire to get out, to not be stuck in that same environment. It might be that he had fewer distractions, a football and a wall but no games console. Look at world class gymnasts, ice skaters, they often come from non Western countries where accomplishment equates to a ‘better’ quality of life.
It might be adversity in terms of parents who fight, abusive backgrounds where sport or film or literature is used as a form of escapism. Young adults who might struggle to fit in focus their attention on more solitary pursuits. People who accomplish things often have adversity somewhere in their backgrounds, not always, but often.
I think other factors involved in accomplishment likely include, single mindedness, consistency of action, resilience / the ability to shrug off disappointment and yes competitiveness will factor in with ambition likely arriving later once the ball of accomplishment has begun rolling.
In some ways you are considering the million dollar question!
There's a fascinating TED talk by a British ex gymnast called Nile Wilson, about what drove him to succeed in gymnastics, and how those same traits and beliefs also drove him into addiction.
Essentially his father created an environment where approval and self worth were totally dependent on achievement and success, and he's spent the rest of his life chasing those things, even to the point of near self destruction.
I've also read comments along similar lines from Emma Raducanu, that she grew up in an environment where she felt her self worth was entirely dependent on her achievements in tennis. Most top sports people don't really talk about this sort of thing, but I suspect the drive to succeed comes from a similar place for many of them.
I stopped thinking in terms of ‘Competing with myself.” I’ve never had any interest in beating others at anything. I only think of getting good at something, and then trying to always get better at it. If I were to face off against a word class a***ole at a chess tournament and won I would get little satisfaction out of the win, even if he or she deserved a severeslesson in humility. People who say “I don’t like to lose” usually mean that in terms of someone bettering them. To me, they just did better. I’m not saying it doesn’t hurt me as a neurotype, but I’m not going to take it out on them. Or - hopefully myself. I’m just going to work on upping my game.
No. Trying to improve isn’t a competition. Learning to be better at cooking meals, for example, isn’t a competition to me. It’s just getting better at something.
Ofc it has contributed to the world in highly beneficial ways. Are you forgetting about the race between the US and Russia to put the first man on the moon? That endeavor solely succeeded at that time BECAUSE they were competing against each other.
Our minds are wired for comfort, Athena , not challenges like you. And a comfortable person becomes complacent. Competition against others is a great way to snap out of that complacency. It gives a sense of urgency to our endeavors, that time is limited. And as a reward, nothing works better for us than social prestige( whatever an individual's version it is). This is why we compete with others Athena.
Not so sure it was the act of competition that put a man on the moon. I think of it more as an act of fear or patriotism. When you are fed a diet of the red scare and the President gives an order to accomplish a mission by the end of the decade I think most of the scientists were pushing themselves and with an unlimited budget you can take long shots or try anything regardless of the outcome. If it was pure competition you aren't throwing Hail Mary's unless you are losing. By 68 we were ahead of Russia and it was only us saying we would put a man on the moon by the end of the next year that kept us going. So maybe pride factors in to it also.
People still honestly believe in the Moon landing in 2024, really?
Declaring the US was ahead of Russia is also as arrogant as it is inaccurate.
Americans have always used Russian (and German - hello Wehrner von Braun) technology in their spacecraft, specifically rockets. Americans liked to focus on their shuttles, but their rocket engines were subpar. The easiest solution, of course, is to buy functional ones from Russia.
That's why the ISS needs Russia to keep it running it.
SpaceX has seen more autonomous success than NASA, being a private company, but even they have yet to pull off putting a man on the Moon. So does NASA in fact.
The Moon landing was nothing but a vain PR stunt. Not the first of its kind, and definitely not the last. But it sure is one of the most notorious and most widely believed lies out there.
The Soviets enjoyed success in their space program early on, which fueled the red scare hysteria of being nuked from space... That made Americans happily pour money into NASA's coffers with no strings attached.
It was, according to Americans, their turn, and they refused to fall behind or look bad compared to the soviets. Americans also needed something to show for their space program. Something that would capture popular imagination. Something that, in the face of all the goalpost moving, would count as a victory. Manned moon landing was just that.
Hollywood was all in on the idea.
Stanley Kubrick stood out as the genius film producer who made the movie magic happen. (You can see the similarities between the Moon landing clip and his other works in clear patterns)
The crowd loved it. Bought into it hook, line, and sinker.
Huge PR victory for the Americans. Dare I say largest in history.
Note that this comment isn't meant to denigrate the American space program or all of its achievements. Just here to point out that those achievements weren't all that they were made out to be.
And, that Americans always were the best at one thing: propaganda.
(used to be at least, before the "woke mind virus" took over)
"I have come to the conclusion that the hardwiring is that way for a reason"-
Likely I am reading into this: The brain is "hardwired" based on reason? Before I agree, let me ask if that is what you mean.
I am not certain "competitive nature" can be isolated as a portion of brain functions (functions being imprecise word).
I believe my thinking is like yours, but I am asking: Is "competitive nature" so fundamental to our "nature as humans" that we are all subject to it in most or all of our actions? Like a BIOS in a computer?
I don't think you need someone else to compete against except to learn a technique perhaps. I think anyone especially at a higher level of competition is going to push themselves to be better than they were yesterday. You can only do that by looking at your own abilities and doing what you have to do to accomplish that. Without that you'd potentially play down to your competition. Even with team sports the ability to execute a play or catch a ball is solely on you.
Interesting. I am a neurotypical who kinda hates competition. I don't like the whole win/lose mentality. Not sure why I feel that way, but I strongly do. My favorite Monopoly game moment is when my dad and I were so evenly matched that we "broke the bank". Our properties gleaned basically the same rents, so we went round and round, paying each other rent, passing GO! and collecting $200 -- until the bank ran out of money.
I recall back in college that the board game Risk was popular among my acquaintances. I was an indifferent player but there were a few people who were very competitive and would actually trash talk about the game.
For some reason I became annoyed when a loudmouth said that I shouldn’t be playing in a game with him. I decided to take him down and announced that he would go out first. I did that, just destroyed his army and the other players piled on when they saw what was happening. I went out next but after that no one wanted to play with me
That's funny. Sometimes it is just best not to poke the bear. It seems he found that out
Haha! “After that no one wanted to play with me.”
Not sure why that tickled me but it really tickled me.
I’d play Risk with you invisigoth. (Only if you team up with me on the down low though)
I think being competitive has to do with self esteem and social recognition.
On the one hand if an individual is valued primarily through what they achieve then it fits that they will chase achievement in order to feel valued.
Similarly, if an individual is not self confident / self satisfied, it fits that they derive their view of self through the eyes of others / social recognition.
I think being competitive is a means to an end rather than the end itself.
That is an interesting point. It makes sense to me to consider it through those terms. I wonder if competition or ambition is the driver of accomplishment, or a combination of both. Ambition doesn't necessarily provide social recognition, however. It can be looked upon as negative, while competition tends to hold a more positive place in people's minds.
I think drivers for accomplishment itself are slightly different to drivers for competitiveness. There are so many personalities, so many backgrounds and life experiences to consider that drivers for accomplishment are likely quite varied.
Assuming natural talent/ intelligence and access to opportunities are all equal, I actually think one of the key drivers for accomplishment is often adversity. Adversity in its broadest sense. Take famous soccer players for example, the likes of Ronaldo being one, he came from a poor background. The driver might have been the desire to get out, to not be stuck in that same environment. It might be that he had fewer distractions, a football and a wall but no games console. Look at world class gymnasts, ice skaters, they often come from non Western countries where accomplishment equates to a ‘better’ quality of life.
It might be adversity in terms of parents who fight, abusive backgrounds where sport or film or literature is used as a form of escapism. Young adults who might struggle to fit in focus their attention on more solitary pursuits. People who accomplish things often have adversity somewhere in their backgrounds, not always, but often.
I think other factors involved in accomplishment likely include, single mindedness, consistency of action, resilience / the ability to shrug off disappointment and yes competitiveness will factor in with ambition likely arriving later once the ball of accomplishment has begun rolling.
In some ways you are considering the million dollar question!
You make very fair points.
There's a fascinating TED talk by a British ex gymnast called Nile Wilson, about what drove him to succeed in gymnastics, and how those same traits and beliefs also drove him into addiction.
Essentially his father created an environment where approval and self worth were totally dependent on achievement and success, and he's spent the rest of his life chasing those things, even to the point of near self destruction.
It's a fascinating watch.
https://youtu.be/N919svTkbok?si=nUljYrQbR5N1QTxQ
I've also read comments along similar lines from Emma Raducanu, that she grew up in an environment where she felt her self worth was entirely dependent on her achievements in tennis. Most top sports people don't really talk about this sort of thing, but I suspect the drive to succeed comes from a similar place for many of them.
Thank you for the link. That's very interesting, and yet quite abusive on the part of the families
Hi Jen. I’ll be interested to watch that, thank you for posting the link.
I stopped thinking in terms of ‘Competing with myself.” I’ve never had any interest in beating others at anything. I only think of getting good at something, and then trying to always get better at it. If I were to face off against a word class a***ole at a chess tournament and won I would get little satisfaction out of the win, even if he or she deserved a severeslesson in humility. People who say “I don’t like to lose” usually mean that in terms of someone bettering them. To me, they just did better. I’m not saying it doesn’t hurt me as a neurotype, but I’m not going to take it out on them. Or - hopefully myself. I’m just going to work on upping my game.
You compete with you, it sounds like
No. Trying to improve isn’t a competition. Learning to be better at cooking meals, for example, isn’t a competition to me. It’s just getting better at something.
Ofc it has contributed to the world in highly beneficial ways. Are you forgetting about the race between the US and Russia to put the first man on the moon? That endeavor solely succeeded at that time BECAUSE they were competing against each other.
Our minds are wired for comfort, Athena , not challenges like you. And a comfortable person becomes complacent. Competition against others is a great way to snap out of that complacency. It gives a sense of urgency to our endeavors, that time is limited. And as a reward, nothing works better for us than social prestige( whatever an individual's version it is). This is why we compete with others Athena.
Thank you for that perspective. That makes a lot of sense to me
Not so sure it was the act of competition that put a man on the moon. I think of it more as an act of fear or patriotism. When you are fed a diet of the red scare and the President gives an order to accomplish a mission by the end of the decade I think most of the scientists were pushing themselves and with an unlimited budget you can take long shots or try anything regardless of the outcome. If it was pure competition you aren't throwing Hail Mary's unless you are losing. By 68 we were ahead of Russia and it was only us saying we would put a man on the moon by the end of the next year that kept us going. So maybe pride factors in to it also.
People still honestly believe in the Moon landing in 2024, really?
Declaring the US was ahead of Russia is also as arrogant as it is inaccurate.
Americans have always used Russian (and German - hello Wehrner von Braun) technology in their spacecraft, specifically rockets. Americans liked to focus on their shuttles, but their rocket engines were subpar. The easiest solution, of course, is to buy functional ones from Russia.
That's why the ISS needs Russia to keep it running it.
SpaceX has seen more autonomous success than NASA, being a private company, but even they have yet to pull off putting a man on the Moon. So does NASA in fact.
The Moon landing was nothing but a vain PR stunt. Not the first of its kind, and definitely not the last. But it sure is one of the most notorious and most widely believed lies out there.
The Soviets enjoyed success in their space program early on, which fueled the red scare hysteria of being nuked from space... That made Americans happily pour money into NASA's coffers with no strings attached.
It was, according to Americans, their turn, and they refused to fall behind or look bad compared to the soviets. Americans also needed something to show for their space program. Something that would capture popular imagination. Something that, in the face of all the goalpost moving, would count as a victory. Manned moon landing was just that.
Hollywood was all in on the idea.
Stanley Kubrick stood out as the genius film producer who made the movie magic happen. (You can see the similarities between the Moon landing clip and his other works in clear patterns)
The crowd loved it. Bought into it hook, line, and sinker.
Huge PR victory for the Americans. Dare I say largest in history.
Note that this comment isn't meant to denigrate the American space program or all of its achievements. Just here to point out that those achievements weren't all that they were made out to be.
And, that Americans always were the best at one thing: propaganda.
(used to be at least, before the "woke mind virus" took over)
Do you still do ballet?
No, I had to quit because of the physical damage to my body
"I have come to the conclusion that the hardwiring is that way for a reason"-
Likely I am reading into this: The brain is "hardwired" based on reason? Before I agree, let me ask if that is what you mean.
I am not certain "competitive nature" can be isolated as a portion of brain functions (functions being imprecise word).
I believe my thinking is like yours, but I am asking: Is "competitive nature" so fundamental to our "nature as humans" that we are all subject to it in most or all of our actions? Like a BIOS in a computer?
More like, we evolved to be the way we are for a reason. Neurotypicals are how they are because of evolution, as are psychopaths.
You have MUCH MORE faith than me!! I just can't bring myself to believe that. Bear with me please!!
I don't think you need someone else to compete against except to learn a technique perhaps. I think anyone especially at a higher level of competition is going to push themselves to be better than they were yesterday. You can only do that by looking at your own abilities and doing what you have to do to accomplish that. Without that you'd potentially play down to your competition. Even with team sports the ability to execute a play or catch a ball is solely on you.
That I agree with
Interesting. I am a neurotypical who kinda hates competition. I don't like the whole win/lose mentality. Not sure why I feel that way, but I strongly do. My favorite Monopoly game moment is when my dad and I were so evenly matched that we "broke the bank". Our properties gleaned basically the same rents, so we went round and round, paying each other rent, passing GO! and collecting $200 -- until the bank ran out of money.