<p>I feel like I need to speak out against the idea of competition, especially within the school system. But I don’t feel like it, so I’ll let someone else do it. You procrastinators, you can listen to this audio clip on YouTube, and tell me what you think. I did and I loved it. It may change your perception about some things.</p>
<p>Look up “Alfie Kohn - The Case Against Competition” and you’ll find it.</p>
<p>I can understand why people dislike competition.</p>
<p>The video is interesting and it’s something many people fail to see when in school. I personally know teachers that try to decrease competition in their classrooms but its difficult to do when the students are naturally competitive.</p>
<p>I just don’t see how it can be avoided (in the adult world, at least). There are too many people for everyone to get what they want. Of course, we could try to redefine what people should want in life so their goals would be more achievable without competition, but even then most of the things people want (food, a job, enough money to survive) are competitive on some level.</p>
<p>@Pippa It’s not that the students are naturally competitive. It’s due to the fact that they’ve been trained like animals to be competitive since they were toddlers.</p>
<p>@heather I understand where you’re coming from. Most of the system is too far gone that it’s practically impossible to wrap your mind around a system as radically different.</p>
<p>Well…life is competitive. Also if there were no competition, there would be no incentive to do well.</p>
<p>I 
competition. </p>
<p>It keeps me sharp.</p>
<p>Competition brings out the best in people. Aside from that, it teaches you the way of life. In the real world, people aren’t seen as equals. If we can’t handle that idea now, it will be much more difficult for us in the future.</p>
<p>Even within the school system, the system is preparing us for the work world. Only the best get into the college of their choice, only the best get hired, etc. Why nurture an unrealistic principle/lifestyle? I think the school system has many flaws, but competition isn’t one of them. That’s something that is natural for the country we live in.</p>
<p>Well, it comes back to scarcity. There’s only so many of the best of this, that, and the other thing, and those tend to end up going to those who put out the best work, the most work, or what-have-you. Even if it ends up being something as basic as ‘person that can catch more fish gets more food.’ The best are well-nourished; the worst starve. It’s not a fun time to be the worst.</p>
<p>An independent drive to do one’s best isn’t the same thing as competition. It’s important to emphasize that as well, since it’s equally important to human development and advancement. But competition is inherent in society. There’s always going to be a need to take out the trash, do the dishes, walk the dog, and so on. Some people want to do some jobs and avoid others. Odds are, the quantities won’t line up perfectly. So people compete for the more scarce, desirable job, and some simply won’t get it.</p>
<p>Given a finite quantity of anything, competition will erupt over who gets how much of the thing. Since resources are finite, it’s better to have a greater chance of getting what you want and need, by being bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, more adaptable… whatever it is that gives you a leg up on the others.</p>
<p>Let’s make this relevant. I want to go to a good college. The college can support and instruct a thousand new students every year. There’s more than a thousand potential new students in their senior year of high school in the world. The students need to somehow prove that they should be at that college. The college wants the best, most interesting students. It’s admirable to do one’s best. It’s more appealing, however, to be one of the best. The -most- able students make it into the college. It’s nice to have students that are good enough, but why take the good when you can have the great?</p>
<p>Since there’s a large amount of people who (probably) want at least some of the same things, it’s in their best interest to become accustomed to the idea of competition, so they’re ready to go after the rarer things in life. The most important, and most difficult part of competition, is becoming accustomed to losing gracefully and learning without panicking or becoming depressed. That’s where things go wrong, in my opinion. People are taught that it’s enough to do their best, and that doing their best will make them all right. Everyone loses sometimes, and it’s important to get used to the idea. Losing won’t always be deadly, hm?</p>
<p>Edit: props to futureoriented for hitting some of the same points I wanted to make.</p>
<p>I also agree with alexissss, competition is part of what drives me to perform my best. There are more factors but that’s an important one.</p>
<p>Anyone care to summarize the video?</p>
<p>@PieceOfToast, extremely well-made argument!</p>
<p>One thing I detest is the coddled way in which kids are raised. The whole just-do-your-best-everyone-gets-a-trophy thing. No. There are winners and losers. It makes society function. </p>
<p>Future and Toast…great points!</p>
<p>Moreso than anything, I seek to induce critical thought about this whole situation. Futureoriented, Toast, I was wondering did you guys listen to the lecture that I referred to? Just curious.</p>
<p>“One thing I detest is the coddled way in which kids are raised. The whole just-do-your-best-everyone-gets-a-trophy thing. No. There are winners and losers. It makes society function.”</p>
<p>What’s wrong with allowing kids a few years of believing the world sucks less than it does? As far as I know, no one’s ever been scarred for life because they believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, and I don’t think anyone was ever hurt by getting a participation trophy when they were six years old. Eventually, you have to grow up and get over your delusions, but there’s nothing wrong with believing while you still can. </p>
<p>Most kids are well aware that the real world has winners and losers from an early age, even if they’re sheltered in formal activities. They’ll see other kids bullied, they’ll see other people’s families fall apart, they’ll see adults fail at things they tried to do. They can easily see that some people were simply born better off than others - richer, healthier, etc. No one is ever all that innocent.</p>
<p>(I don’t really remember ever getting an actual prize for games when I was little, though. There were games with winners and games without. When someone won at dodgeball or something, you clapped for five seconds and moved on. The only people who ever got mad were the kids who were inclined to throw a tantrum every five minutes anyway.)</p>
<p>This manner of parenting often extends into teen years, though. Even if the kids are exposed to situations wherein there are clear winners and losers, they may still see themselves as the exception as a result of this upbringing. </p>
<p>I really never saw the purpose of fairy tales and the like, but that’s me.</p>
<p>(I don’t know any little kids, so what I say about them is pretty much entirely based on my own thoughts when I was little. I may have been atypical…I’m not sure.)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say there’s any special purpose to fairy tales, but they make people happy. (Whether or not it’s unethical to lie to your kids in this case is debatable.) I was never told about Santa Claus and I don’t think I lost any happiness in the deal, but some kids like it and that’s why people do it. It shouldn’t continue into the teen years, but the fact that the myth is occasionally perpetuated for that long doesn’t make it bad to use with younger kids. I just don’t think believing in stupid stuff that makes you happy is necessarily harmful, as long as you get over it before you’re a teenager (probably long before), and I think most people do. </p>
<p>Little kids are less rational than other people. An adult or a teenager ought to be able to understand the difference between “better than me at such-and-such and I need to improve” and “better than me in general and I am a loser” but little kids are more inclined to take things out of proportion (especially if the person they’re competing with is a sibling, I think). I’m definitely not in favor of unjustified self-confidence, but having an unnecessarily low self-image because of a few events that don’t really mean anything in the grand scheme of things is harmful too. </p>
<p>I don’t think much of anyone makes it all the way to adulthood and still believes they’re some kind of special exception, except for maybe the people who actually do get accepted to Harvard and the like - and those people probably are special exceptions. Someone who thought they were awesome and then got rejected from a college they thought they’d get into would see that maybe they’re not as awesome as they think.</p>
<p>I’m not against having little kids play games with non-winners, or with competition in general, because a lot of fun games are inherently competitive. I’m mostly just against people disparaging kids for not being better than they are, and with contests between kids (sports or talent shows or middle school grades or whatever) being taken so seriously that resentment develops. Some parents will actually berate their kids when they don’t win and I think that’s ridiculous. There’s a difference between singling someone out as a winner and singling someone out as a loser.</p>
<p>Damn, that was an essay and a half. I’m procrastinating on my homework. :(</p>
<p>[The</a> Case Against Competition](<a href=“http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/tcac.htm]The”>http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/tcac.htm)</p>
<p>I read the article here, assuming that the material was dictated into the audio clip. I’m really not much for listening to a computer, if I can read it instead.</p>
<p>I’m wary of the comparison between a mythical/fairy tale figure and sheltering from competition. It’s definitely possible to make the case that things like Santa Claus foster a sense of entitlement, but they’re occurrences that happen once or a handful of times a year, so they aren’t too injurious in an otherwise good upbringing. Not experiencing loss and competition firsthand is more systematic.</p>
<p>As an example: Living in a nice neighborhood with enough food and a puppy and toys and so on will probably not hinder the typical individual.</p>
<p>Living in a nice neighborhood with enough food and a puppy and so on AND not understanding that other people aren’t as fortunate, and that there are causes and reasons for that situation (i.e. they don’t choose that lifestyle) may very well hinder the person in some situations, as they have such a large gap in their knowledge of the world.</p>
<p>I’ve nothing against recognition of effort and participation; it’s always good to encourage people, especially children, to try new things. Participation should be recognized, but not at the expense of the winners.</p>
<p>Edit: It’s pretty well impossible to have winners without losers. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that someone’s lost. The example about childrens’ contests being blown out of proportion is more of a problem with parenting than with competition.</p>
<p>As for people growing out of the idea of “better than me and I’m a loser,” avoiding that is less important than a sort of opposite viewpoint. “I’ve put in the work, and so I deserve to win(to receive credit and a reward, since there isn’t a winner, per se).” That, in my view, is the greater danger associated with a lack of competition.</p>
<p>Some people might be surprised at how much of a problem that is, but I’ve definitely heard friends of friends say that sort of thing.</p>
<p>I’ll agree on that point, heather. Kids shouldn’t be belittled for shortcomings. <em>^▁^</em></p>
<p>Omg do your hwww. xD</p>
<p>“It’s pretty well impossible to have winners without losers. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that someone’s lost.”</p>
<p>I’d take “you have lost” a lot better than I’d take “you’re a loser.” Definition-wise, they mean the same thing, but the one is temporary and the other has a permanent connotation, y’know? The one is something I did and the other is something I am. I’m concerned with the idea of kids internalizing the idea that they’re inherently a loser and will always be a loser - and I’ve seen kids believe that because of a few failures. </p>
<p>The weird thing about considering yourself a loser is that most people I know who believe they’re losers don’t consider it their own fault - they’re a loser because they were born that way and they’ll always be that way and they can’t change it. “I have lost” is something you can own up to and change the next time around, and I think it’s a far more motivating (proactive?) statement than “I’m a loser.”</p>