Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

naut OP wrote

I'll try to break down my argument a bit more, but at some point I'm going to get lost in the semantic differences we're trying to make.

Play is not competitive - it is a fundamentally cooperative act

This is where we differ in our definitions. I would argue that play does contain competition, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. What matters is the intent the parties have. I think /u/masque makes a good point here in that competition is destructive when there is no other option, when you are forced to compete.

In a competitive framework, your goal is mutually exclusive with other people's

I don't think this can be said absolutely. Even in an ecological perspective, my goal of survival would not be completely mutually exclusive to that of others. Why else would individuals work together to survive? Cooperating allows a group to succeed in a competitive framework. While absolutes are extremely useful for examining concepts, I don't think they can apply to a relativistic world.

I would even consider this debate as a form of competition on some level. We're both trying to argue our points of view, but that doesn't mean there must be a winner and a loser.

4

RadicalConstructivist wrote

I don't think this can be said absolutely. Even in an ecological perspective, my goal of survival would not be completely mutually exclusive to that of others.

If there is no mutually exclusive goal, then in what respect is anyone "competing"? What is even the point in the word if you're gonna use it so broadly?

I would even consider this debate as a form of competition on some level. We're both trying to argue our points of view, but that doesn't mean there must be a winner and a loser.

"I would consider this thread a hierarchy on some level, after all each comment appears above another. And there's no problem with that. Just because they have an order doesn't mean those above must be superior to those below. Therefore, hierarchy is good."

What are you even trying to say?

1

masque wrote

What are you even trying to say?

Don't act like the idea that "debate is competitive" is incomprehensible.

The parties involved presumably have the goal of convincing the audience (and maybe their opponent) to accept their own viewpoint. One participant's success in this regard will detract from the other participant's success. How is that not competition?

Sure, you could argue that both parties have the "shared goal" of arriving at the truth, but this is no different from the fact that in, say, chess, both parties pursue the shared goal of mutual enjoyment by working towards a mutually-exclusive sub-goal of winning the game. Thus, there is both competition and cooperation present.

3

RadicalConstructivist wrote

Honestly this thread is the perfect example of why viewing discussions in a competitive framework is shit, it just devolves into people trying to sound or feel the most right at the expense of coherence or anything useful.

Like, what exactly are you arguing? Because it's got fuck all to do with anything I've said

1

masque wrote (edited )

Like, what exactly are you arguing? Because it's got fuck all to do with anything I've said

You appear to believe that "Competition is always destructive - for relationships, play, mental health and performance," which I think is wrong, as evidenced by examples of positive competition. You seem to reject these positive examples by refusing to view them as truly competitive, which is why my other responses to your comments mostly consist of me defending the characterization of play, debate, and the "desire to be really good at something" as competitive. (EDIT: Perhaps I should rephrase the last one slightly, and say that while the "desire to be really good at something" is not inherently competitive, many competitive behaviours are driven by this desire in a way that is ultimately beneficial. Ultimately, I see "competitive" as a description of activity, not motivation)

If I've misunderstood your position, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what it is that you're actually arguing here.

I don't "view discussions in a competitive framework," but I recognize that I am trying to convince you (or others reading this) of something, and I think that this is an example of an endeavour that can be described as competitive but also not necessarily bad.

4

moonlune wrote

I would even consider this debate as a form of competition on some level.

Internet debate is capitalism!!!

1

ShadesPath wrote

It most definitely can be if not so from the outset. Debate can be a means of generating social capital which can turn into financial capital.

3