This conversation is closed.

We need more cooperation than competition.

I was never fan of those Olympic individual person competing games.
I rather watch 10 people team vs 10 team peoples to compete.

The way I see competition that it Doesn't Matter.

In business, We see companies always competing against someone else.
A company is like an individual.

This Same thing as a student in school.

We are always competing against someone else. We are always trying to be better than someone else. Better quality. More features. Better service. We are always comparing ourselves to others. But have you noticed that when you compete someone else, NO ONE will help you. NO ONE. Your by yourself.

What if we wake up everyday from bed to work and ask what if we want to be than better than OURSELVES?

What if the goal was to do better work this week than the week before?

To make this month better than last month?

For no other reason than because we want to leave the organization in a better state than we found it?

What if we have 6,000 companies vs 6,000 to cooperate? Not 1 company vs 1 company to compete?

Why don't we all stop beating the sh!t of each other for the best. HOW ABOUT WORKING TOGETHER MORE

Why don't we NOT compete to be the best, BUT COOPERATE TOGETHER TO CREATE THE BEST

Competition for competition's sake is not good. To compete so that YOU strive to do YOUR best is good.

I envision a world where we cooperate more each other,and work together to create one better idea. We must us all work together to create a one better world.

Closing Statement from Steven Hsieh

“The goal is NOT to beat each other, but to IMPROVE and CHALLENGE each other.”

-Steven Hsieh

  • Jul 21 2012: We suffer from a problem of perspective. We do not see competition as something which should help others, ultimately. Mostly, we view it as a very individualistic pursuit. The fact that companies cooperate, within, or with others, is in order to secure the most gain through such endeavors, and the rewards of such cooperation do not favor all of the participants equally.

    We also suffer a problem that is a result of being in a paradigm. The comment of Pat Gilbert says it all, "Ain't gunna happen, competition is organic to LIFE."

    Yes, competition is organic to life. But seeing it in a way where it is, "Dog eat dog," is not. It is a part of a paradigm, a system of thinking which has been developed and cultivated, and presides over us all. In fact, so ubiquitous is this paradigm, that we mostly don't question it. Instead, we say, "Well that's the way things are," etc.

    But perhaps we do not see the role of education in changing paradigms, in developing new behavioral traits, new thoughts, new desires. Yes, competition is inherent within our species, but the form has yet to be perfected.

    For instance, when competition does not benefit society, the equilibrium that society needs to operate (and which it has ultimately yet to achieve anywhere), becomes impossible to fathom, impossible to realize.

    Only when competition has been inverted, where each seeks to benefit society the most they can, and competes in this way, towards the betterment of society, will competition reach maturity as a form. Until then, it is only something which stands in the way of society's evolution.
    • Jul 21 2012: Fully agree with your comment because as we can see when we are facing the world of today,that we are a bunch of individuals wich dont coorperate but rather prefer to stay in competition.
      In the meanwhile we brought this world in a deep global crisis by our individual actions and still all the nations dont feel the urge to unite and work together and coorperate.(Rio + 20)
      Nature is showing us that we have to become equal to it bacause we are the only disturbing facto, and nature is striking back through huricanes,floods,fire and so on.
      Think if we are willing to succeed in any area of our life we have to coorperate like cogwheels in a system so that every one (small or big cogwheel) will benefit from the force we will produce together.

      And as we know in a integral world wich is totaly connected we only need a mindchange to produce this integral force.
    • E Pines

      • +6
      Jul 22 2012: Mr. Prosser, I find your perspective refreshing and deep.

      That the whole is greater than the sum of the parts is a truism of system mechanical, and natural. In it most extreme, we have the concept of the quantum computer, whose (Q)BITs form an entangled whole capable of exponentially greater computing speed.

      When the competition of an N-Bit memory is translated it into the cooperation of a 2-to-the-power-of-N, N-BIT element engine of instantaneous computing power (even at the existing prototype level of N=7), it is a wonder to behold.

      Imagine Humanity organized in a cooperative, mutually responsible manner -- competing for who can do the most for everyone rather than just for numero uno. Imagine this dog-eat-dog and pack-of-dogs eat everyone world transformed into a truly human society. Can we begin to grasp the problems that could be overcome, the universally beneficial accomplishment that could be achieved?

      I don't want to just dream your dream Mr. Prosser, I want to see it happen!
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: Whether to participate in a competition depends on your capability. If you are capable to compete go for it. But people mindlessly want to compete with everyone. I think it’s a dumb choice that one make. One should evaluate himself that what am I good at? What I want? Why I am here? . I don’t think there will be competition anymore if you find these answer. Statistics says most of the people are not happy with what they do. People should follow their passion. If you are good at something then go for it. Make a name by standing aside from crowd. Because you will never care for winning the game but rather enjoy it. Students are rushing for getting ‘A’ in their grade sheets. People are competing to full their bank accounts with lots of money. Companies are running to become best. There is no perfection in any system. Man nature is change. His physical needs always arise. We should focus on inner happiness and peace. I agree “We must us all work together to create a one better world.”
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2012: You've actually touched on a very interesting psychological debate, one that I've always wondered about : our innate desire to compete. We see the competition in nature, not just animals, but plants, and trees. All are competing for survival.

    However, with our greater capacity for reasoning, one should think that at some point we could rise to the level where we would all work for the good of each other and stop trying to beat each other out for that best job, bigger house, faster car, hotter spouse.

    But that's psychologically. Since your question focuses on the economics: that would be an interesting idea, but it would rest on all businesses being based on culture of altruism rather than a culture of profit. You would have a better chance of changing us from carbon-based to silicon-based life forms.

    The competition factor is ingrained in Capitalism, and when done well it has its advantages. Two people make a product and the one who makes it better sells more, forcing the other either to get out of the business or to make his product even better for the consumer to become the better seller. The consumer is supposed to benefit because we get a better product. And everybody's happy.

    That is when competition is healthy and everybody understands the rules and plays fairly. (Sports metaphor) - but sadly, the game was never played fairly from the beginning, and now we are trapped in some sort of nasty plutocracy. But I think you are truly looking for is some sort of answer that at some point, there will be a communal working together. Some people will view that as communism, but they will be wrong. You are simply looking for an ethical system in which there are no "losers"

    A noble pursuit. I say please study and develop your theory. I for one have no answers, but I would greatly enjoy reading your conclusions.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2012: I am the least competitive person you might know and yet, I do think competition has given us much in this world. While we are not motivated this way many others are. I love extreme sport, olympics and academic journals (which might be the most competitive of all.) They show us what humanity can do at our upper limits and I think that elevates us all.
      • thumb
        Jul 16 2012: Debra

        Who is your favorite WWF wrestler?
      • thumb
        Jul 16 2012: It is in the Olympics? How do you figure academic journals are a sport?
        • thumb
          Jul 16 2012: Never said they were a sport, Pat, just that I love them and they are all very competitive.
      • thumb
        Jul 16 2012: Well ok then
        • thumb
          Jul 16 2012: Just for future reference, Pat. Is that the way a Tea Partier says "OH, I made a mistake"?
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2012: Yes Debra or would you like me to beg forgiveness for such a huge faux paw, Not that I would...
  • Jul 18 2012: The goal is NOT to beat each other, but to IMPROVE and CHALLENGE each other.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2012: When this conversation is over count the "agree" replies and the "disagree" replies. Whichever number is larger is the proven winner (not necessarily the truth) by outscoring the other. That's competition.
  • Jul 17 2012: I do not think we will ever get rid of competition (at least not until the machines take over and humans become their pets).
    Competition has many positives and getting rid of it would have a net negative affect.

    However, it seems that western society has elevated this belief in competition to the level of religion. We compete whenever and wherever possible, and little thought is given to whether or not competition is the best approach in a particular situation. Just suggesting that competing might not be appropriate to a situation can result in shouts of unAmerican and other emotional responses. One factor that promotes competition is an aspect of human nature which is usually not considered positive, the wish to feel superior to others.

    One example where competition has added huge costs and inefficiencies is the cell phone industry. Yes, competition has helped to lower prices and improve service. It is also responsible for the extra expenses involved in building and maintaining multiple networks of cell phone towers, all concentrated in the high population areas. Each cell phone company must bid on a piece of the radio wave spectrum available, and much of the spectrum was sitting unused, held in reserve for future customers. If the industry had been allowed to cooperate we might have had a single network of towers that provided better service to the entire country, with much less expense.

    I believe in competition, but do not agree that it is always appropriate.
  • Jul 16 2012: Cooperation is good.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2012: yet another instance of logically deducing something that is proven wrong many times. how many occasions we need to test whether competition and freedom wins or control and centralization? two germany's, two koreas, china vs hongkong/taiwan/singapore. a wonderful opportunity to dig deeper and start to question the proposition.

    and in fact we learn that competition greatly helps. it might also has some psychological effect, but the main benefit is not that. the main benefit is trial and error. no planning and reasoning and modeling can deliver results as good as the free market's evolutionary method based on new ideas, combination and selection.

    your idea is just another strategy that competes with all others. do it, and see how far that gets you. if you can deliver better results, your strategy will be copied, combined and modified by many people. so basically you compete with a sentiment of non-competition. and in fact this is a perfectly valid strategy, even if it has false premises.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2012: Ain't gunna happen, competition is organic to LIFE.
  • Jul 21 2012: Co operation is important but in my point of view i think without competition you cannot succeed or go ahead. When you get strong competition and succeed you are like the conqueror of the world ~!
  • Jul 19 2012: Mr Hsieh,

    You wrote, "I am not saying to get rid of competition. Competition has lots of benefit."

    It seems that we all agree on this point now. It seems to me that a more appropriate question might be, Under what conditions is it better to compete and under what conditions is it better to cooperate. In my example of the cell phone industry, the various companies could have cooperated in the building and placement of the cell phone towers, while competing in other areas, such as features, pricing and customer service. Could you suggest criteria for choosing cooperation rather than competition?
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: Steve, Nice thought but will never happen. There is to much at stake. Example: I vote for all companies to devulge their data and lets cure the common cold. Enough of this secret stuff think about me John Public. The company says, heck with that. Do you have any idea what is at stake here. Trillions of dollars. No one will want to share. They all want to win the race.

    Sports that are considered team sports are not. It is the kicker against the goal tender. The pitcher against the batter. The shooter against the defender. The passer against the defense. The daughter compares her meals against her moms cooking. Some are friendly and some are hostile and disruptive.

    The heard is ran by the fastest horse, strongest elk, biggest bull, etc ... Your point about individual effort is well taken. If you take the mans money he deserves your best effort. Even more to the point is the personal ethics involved. You still gotta look that guy in the face when you look in the mirror.

    All the best. Bob.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Jul 18 2012: I hear you, but for as long as our corrupt economic model controls what has been erroneously called "education", things will not change. The US Dept of Ed says that it exists to prepare students for global competition. It doesn't say it exists to educate, or to prepare students to run a government of, by, & for people, or even to help students learn how to run small American businesses - which would stimulate cooperation.

    AGain, I stress that what we call "education" is really diseducation and failure of education. It's a crime against children - as it stands now.l
  • Jul 18 2012: A real life example where lack of competition led to inefficiency.

    Early in my career I was working as a computer programmer at a midsize bank. This bank was in a midsize town that was isolated; the only competition was a second local bank. In our department we had twelve programmers and we were all busy doing projects and maintenance. A programmer moved into town from outside the region and was hired. This programmer asked why we had so many programmers. She had come from a bank servicing company that served ten banks with only four programmers.

    When you only compete against yourself, you might never learn how much better you could be.
  • Jul 17 2012: I am not saying to get rid of competition. Competition has lots of benefit.

    Competition for competition's sake is not good. To compete so that YOU strive to do YOUR best is good.

    People can get too wrapped up in competition a lot of the time, which can make them become greedy and unreasonable.

    It's good until' you reach a certain point.
    Too much is the same thing as not enough.

    If you read the book "Drive" is about what motivates people, and the research mentioned that people are generally not motivated in the long-term by competition, but rather by mastery and meaningfulness. The book Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi argues that people are more creative when they are not thinking about trying to beat other people.

    John Wooden told his players to not look at the scoreboard - it is distracting and useless information. He defined success to be the peace of mind you get from knowing that you performed to the best of your ability.

    Never try to be better than someone else. Learn from others, and try to be the best you can be.

    "If we compete against others, no one wants to help us. If we compete against ourselves, everyone wants to help us."
    -Simon Sinek

    Competing with someone else will never result in true happiness.

    If you compete just to prove you are better than others is not productive for everybody, and it won't last.

    The goal is NOT to beat each other, but to IMPROVE and CHALLENGE each other.

    We need more of cooperation.
  • Jul 17 2012: Competition for competition's sake is not good. To compete so that YOU strive to do YOUR best is good.
  • Jul 17 2012: You are always competing in life. Twins start out in the womb. Competition provides the external motivation to make us want to do better. You can push yourself all you want, but at some point you need an external source of feedback to let you know how you are doing. Many people are motivated to their best work and develop their best work habits through competition.
    Whenever you go shopping, the products that you select determine which companies are the winners.
    If you have a mate, they chose you over the rest of the world.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2012: Many people, even athletes, do aim to better their previous results and to improve continually. You have heard the expression "personal best?"
    In economic terms, most people with a choice will nevertheless prefer to acquire the best value for their money. That is, when choosing between a well made and a shoddy product, they will prefer the better made, even if the business that made it consistently offers that quality (hasn't improved) and the business offering the shoddy product used to produce even worse products. Would you have them choose differently?
  • Jul 16 2012: Competition is essential to the American Economy, dude. It's the only thing that separates Capitalism from Communism. Capitalism is what drives down prices at WAL-MART and motivates athletes. It breeds rivalries. IF competition didn't exist, sports would suck. REALLY badly suck. People have competed all throughout human history, as pat said, it's organic to life. It comes with the territory, and gives rise to billion-dollar industries and saves us from paying $2000 for a fortune cookie (from a Looney Tunes Cartoon). It broods hatred, sure, but if competition didn't other thing would. If the goal of sports was to beat your own last record, it would be boring. There would be no comparing to other people, and once you're out, you're out. To be honest, this question sounds like the plot of a bad Dystopia. No offense, but keep in mind that there is such a thing as a bad idea when you post. It's a nice idea, but takes away too many elements of the modern world and aspects of humanity to be put into practice. As a self-motivator though, something to look at when you get out of bed, it's good.
    I can see it now:

    | make today better |
    | than yesterday!!!!! |