Mentally Damaging Little Kids

[MrCalavera]

My point was never that it was the only one.

Was it? Because you started out with that take, that competitiveness is this inherent, animalistic trait, without which there's no stimulation for humans to improve.

I pointed out, with the link, that there are other, in this case: money and services.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Was it? Because you started out with that take, that competitiveness is this inherent, animalistic trait, without which there's no stimulation for humans to improve.

I pointed out, with the link, that there are other, in this case: money and services.

Both of those involve competition in them. And my take was that trying to remove competitiveness has led to more problems without actually removing competitiveness. Ewok's response was that competitiveness is just "assholeness" which I disagreed with.

 

[Trunkage]

Both of those involve competition in them. And my take was that trying to remove competitiveness has led to more problems without actually removing competitiveness. Ewok's response was that competitiveness is just "assholeness" which I disagreed with.

Where has people 'taken competition out of money and services'? Competition can be put into anything so yes it can be everywhere. It usually makes things worse rather than makes things better. Competition needs to be targeted and for a limited time, not just thrown around willy nilly. Let me give you an example. At my work, they decided to pit different centres against each other based on performance. I don't listen at all to such nonsense and didn't even bother reading the memo. I and my team unintentionally won three different competition (one on customer satisfaction, one on amount of customers and on government assessment to maintain quality.) I'm assuming it has something to do with me ethos: If it was good enough to win a competition it should be done ALWAYS. The competition just gave people an excuse to be lazy. Money cant make good ideas into a habit. You need to internalise your reward system, not wait for extra money to do well at your work.

 

[SupahEwok]

Hahahahahaha!

Well then, I would postulate that you got the feeling that bettering yourself will give you validation from the values you were taught as a kid, by your parents and/or society. But, why would they teach you these values? I believe it is because our forefathers went through trials and tribulations and had to compete with others in society to earn their way in life and so they saw the value in those experiences, even if they weren't always ones that made them feel good, in how it shaped their sense of right and wrong and worth. Teaching these values to the next generation is meant to give them a head start so that they don't have to take quite so many bumps and bruises to come to the same conclusion. Agema put it more eloquently than me though, but what he said is essentially how I feel on this.

I gotta say, I took a while to read this, cuz the moment I read "postulate" I decided I did not feel like being armchair psycho-analyzed.

I learned some value from my parents. I learned some from school. I have kept some and discarded others; if I hadn't made those choices, I'd be a blind Trump supporter, would think that the blacks needed to work like the rest of us instead of being out in the streets, and thinking that capitalism was the expression of natural human behavior. And also that all communists were genocidal authoritarians who wanted to return their countries to a form of feudalism with themselves as the aristocracy.

The difference was made not because I wanted to compete against my own heritage or any such nonsense as that. If anything, the beliefs of my childhood would afford me far greater moral certainty and a greater sense of worldly order than my hodgepodge of values now. I simply had educating myself on the world as an interest. And I have to say, having gone just a tiny bit on that path: this idea of "balancing" the "virtues" of competition with the "negatives" is hogwash. There are no virtues to either extrinsic or internal competition among human beings that are not bought with toxicity and the lessening of others, therefore there are no virtues, only winners and losers. The idea of competition being a necessary human trait only serves to justify class division, winners and losers. That goes for capitalism, for feudalism, for mercantilism, for most political and economical ordering systems you're likely to name.

I've already stated that research supports the idea that most human to human competition, in the form of wars and economic/political dominance, only began with the onset of agriculture, and how the value systems of the previous hunter gatherer tribes were fundamentally different. When you have nothing to conquer, there is little reason for competition. I hold the will to dominate fellow humans as inherently toxic, to one's values and spirituality, and I doubt my mind could be changed.

You do not seem to be distinguishing between struggle and competition. Our ancestors struggled. They learned from their struggles, or they didn't and perished or were impoverished. Only some of those struggles involved competition, and most of the notable competitions spilled rivers and oceans of blood, pain, and hurt. What I learned from those lessons: competition is a vice.

 

[lil devils x]

Ahh, I was hoping this was a 'how to' thread.

Well, I can see the point, but at the same time I think the start of the award for everyone thing started mainly as a response to overly harsh criticism that would stop a child from even wanting to develop a talent they had into something worth while.

I believe they started the " everyone is a superstar" movement of giving out awards and such to everyone as a response to the long lasting severe damage it was doing to already struggling children to make them feel as though they were "less than" everyone else. Children not being capable of achieving the accolation that other children receive is very damaging to their self esteem leading to childhood depression and even suicide. From my experience with working with children, the children who are most successful and receive the most awards do not actually have to put forth as much effort as those who struggle to just get by. I say this as an " overachiever" myself. I was always good at everything I did, I didn't have to study as hard as others and made better grades than they did. Whether or not I received an award was irrelevant to how I preformed. I performed well simply because I could and " doing better than someone else" never factored into my performance or thinking. For others, they could work 100x harder than I did and still perform worse than I did. I think that the pressure to compete in schools is far more damaging than beneficial to children, as it only serves to reinforce the mindset that no matter what they do, no matter how hard they try, they will never be enough, and that is not a healthy mindset for a child to have when you want them to have a high self esteem and are trying to provide them the tools to have a happy and successful life. Education should be about providing children the resources they need to develop their own abilities to lead a happy and successful life, not a contest to see who is " better than others" that destroys their self esteem. One child's desire to "compete to be better than others" is not worth causing the depression and suicide of another. In my families traditional culture, we did not put such pressure of competition on children, instead education for children was focused on " everyone is a valuable member of community and important to our success" and trying to help the child develop their own abilities and determine what those are and then provide them with the resources they need to be able to develop that child's own natural abilities to the fullest they are capable of and placing the value on that instead of attempting to foster the mindset of " I'm better than you" and " survival of the fittest" culture that is ingrained in fostering competition in children. I see that as pretty toxic and that children would benefit more from being taught " we help one another to survive" rather than teaching them "we exist to compete with one another for the few jobs that are available, and not being best means you don't get to survive."

 

[Buyetyen]

I feel like I got the worst of both approaches growing up. In 1st and 2nd grade, it wasn't a competition and I think that was better for me. Then things started vascilating weirdly. Some of my teachers encouraged competition between us to a rather suspect degree. The cliquishness kids tend toward as they approach adolescence was only exacerbated as a result. On the other hand, I also had teachers who were so unconditionally positive that I learned pretty quickly that any and all criticism they had to offer was shallow at best and even their praise became suspect because there was nothing to contrast it to.

So the end result was I developed a skepticism toward authority figures and my values system for most of my childhood was really poorly calibrated, leading to long-term problems with depression, anxiety and self-loathing later in life. If I had to pick which one did more damage though, it was the hypercompetitive shit. In most of my classes I was one of the nominal "smart ones" which meant that every time I made a mistake it became open season to taunt and bully me. Maybe half the teachers ever did anything about that. Not exactly a great life lesson to drill into kids that you have to excel at your thing at all time or suffer disproportionate pain and humiliation.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I feel like I got the worst of both approaches growing up. In 1st and 2nd grade, it wasn't a competition and I think that was better for me. Then things started vascilating weirdly. Some of my teachers encouraged competition between us to a rather suspect degree. The cliquishness kids tend toward as they approach adolescence was only exacerbated as a result. On the other hand, I also had teachers who were so unconditionally positive that I learned pretty quickly that any and all criticism they had to offer was shallow at best and even their praise became suspect because there was nothing to contrast it to.

So the end result was I developed a skepticism toward authority figures and my values system for most of my childhood was really poorly calibrated, leading to long-term problems with depression, anxiety and self-loathing later in life. If I had to pick which one did more damage though, it was the hypercompetitive shit. In most of my classes I was one of the nominal "smart ones" which meant that every time I made a mistake it became open season to taunt and bully me. Maybe half the teachers ever did anything about that. Not exactly a great life lesson to drill into kids that you have to excel at your thing at all time or suffer disproportionate pain and humiliation.

That is a sucky experience, I can empathise with a fair bit too. Although the scepticism towards authority figures I believe is more healthy than not, especially as time goes on. it's just unfortunate the pathways to it can so often be damaging to other parts of the psyche as well.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I gotta say, I took a while to read this, cuz the moment I read "postulate" I decided I did not feel like being armchair psycho-analyzed.

Postulate

To suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

Is there something wrong with this word?

I learned some value from my parents. I learned some from school. I have kept some and discarded others; if I hadn't made those choices, I'd be a blind Trump supporter, would think that the blacks needed to work like the rest of us instead of being out in the streets, and thinking that capitalism was the expression of natural human behavior. And also that all communists were genocidal authoritarians who wanted to return their countries to a form of feudalism with themselves as the aristocracy.

What communists want is different from what their methods produce.

The difference was made not because I wanted to compete against my own heritage or any such nonsense as that. If anything, the beliefs of my childhood would afford me far greater moral certainty and a greater sense of worldly order than my hodgepodge of values now. I simply had educating myself on the world as an interest. And I have to say, having gone just a tiny bit on that path: this idea of "balancing" the "virtues" of competition with the "negatives" is hogwash.

And my experience has shown me that fearing the potential harm of others just from me attempting to compete with them has led to me not pursuing my dreams for fear that I may push out someone else. I'm tired of being taught to engage in entropy and die and I'm tired of hearing others disparage my generation for turning out this way just because they've done as they were taught.

There are no virtues to either extrinsic or internal competition among human beings that are not bought with toxicity and the lessening of others, therefore there are no virtues, only winners and losers. The idea of competition being a necessary human trait only serves to justify class division, winners and losers. That goes for capitalism, for feudalism, for mercantilism, for most political and economical ordering systems you're likely to name.

And I disagree with your conclusion and the socialist philosophy it is based on. Yes, it can be used to justify those things, but if you keep rejecting every natural aspect of humanity ad infinitum then you're eventually going to be left with nothing.

I've already stated that research supports the idea that most human to human competition, in the form of wars and economic/political dominance, only began with the onset of agriculture, and how the value systems of the previous hunter gatherer tribes were fundamentally different. When you have nothing to conquer, there is little reason for competition. I hold the will to dominate fellow humans as inherently toxic, to one's values and spirituality, and I doubt my mind could be changed.

I fail to see what possible research could contradict the years of history we have of peoples like those of native America and the Steppe. The Steppe also producing the largest land empire the world has ever seen.
Further, how does it contradict animal behavior? If competition is just a result of agriculture then we wouldn't see it across the animal kingdom.

You do not seem to be distinguishing between struggle and competition. Our ancestors struggled. They learned from their struggles, or they didn't and perished or were impoverished. Only some of those struggles involved competition, and most of the notable competitions spilled rivers and oceans of blood, pain, and hurt. What I learned from those lessons: competition is a vice.

We live in the most prosperous age humanity has ever seen, if we can't get those values from real struggle then where? If we can't have any common morals because of subjectivism then where do we get those values? Then finally, if we can't even have competition then where do we get those values?

I do not disagree that competition or struggle can and does bring out negative aspects of humanity, but it also bring out positive aspects. We should be encouraging kids to compete but not hate their competitors, "be a good sport" "play by the rules" "work hard" while also bringing out their potential. But we cannot just give them platitudes that make them expect everything to be given or shelter them from all the hardships and evils of the world, because they're going to have to face those things eventually if they're going to take up the torch. Finding the balance is hard, but it's something we must do.