Xref: utzoo talk.politics.theory:673 talk.philosophy.misc:976 sci.misc:1232
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!vu0112
From: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Friendly Competition and Hostile Aggression
Keywords: competition aggression cooperation
Message-ID: <1026@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 88 13:55:25 GMT
References: <1125@deepthot.UUCP> <4274@hoptoad.uucp> <28124@linus.UUCP>
Reply-To: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Distribution: na
Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY
Lines: 45

In article <28124@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes:
>I think we should distinguish between friendly competition (sport)
>for the purposes of sharpening one's skills, and hostile aggression
>for the purpose of beating one's foes.

I'm a debator by nature, a philosopher by training (one day for money?),
a professional software designer, Go player, and frequent poster here (
;-> ).  In all these areas, I've found that being able to compete
without ego (without hostility, aggression) is absolutely critical to
whatever success I have had.  On those occasions where I "lose" it, I
almost always lose the argument/game/point, or make some terribly
embarrassing faux pas.  Whereas when my "opponent" has a personal
investment, I'm at an advantage.  I guess it's the Mr.  Spock syndrome. 

>The word "compete" comes from the latin com + petere, meaning
>"to seek together".  Healthy competition can motivate us to reach
>new heights.

I find it *very* helpful (especially in Go) to have a constructive
attitude, that is, it's not me against my opponent, but rather it's me
*with* my opponent *against the game/problem/issue*.  It's almost like
the game is more real than either of us, and we're just exploring it. 
The key is to know when you're wrong, and have enough security and
confidence (enough ego) to instantly admit it, and move on. 

>It is also theorized that it takes a higher level of intelligence
>to engage in cooperative behavior than in competitive behavior.
>The concept of a non-zero sum game that admits of a win-win
>outcome seems to be harder to grasp than the concept of a zero
>sum game that only admits of a win-lose outcome.

Well, on the other hand I don't pull any punches when I'm right, and I
do certainly try to win.  While I act cooperatively, I wouldn't dare say
I'm more intelligent for it.  Rather I suspect that
cooperation:competition are a kind of dialectic, and like in so many
others (nature:nurture, mind:body, we could go on and on) both sides of
the dualism are necessary, and neither is individually sufficient.

>--Barry Kort

O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician 
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .