Children's competion

[Philosophos]

Hello I was watching some videos the other day and I came across a video of G. Carlin that talks about children. At some point he started mentioning the competition between children.

"Today noone is a loser. Some kids learn the truth about themselves when they are in their twenties from their boss. "get the fuck out boby you are a loser". Do you know what they say to a kid that loses: You were the last winner...."

He said some more, but I wanted to ask you what do you think about the children's competition? Do you think it's natural? Do you think is healthy? Do you think it's unnecessary? Do you think it's unnecessary but people nowadays can't really understand how they should treat a child that doesn't compete with anyone?

(All these things that I mentioned are not totallitarian I'm not talking about competing all the time or that success is stepping on others or that the kid should be send for execution if he competes with another child. )

[Dean]

Its important to appreciate that the notion of "winners" assumes competition. Iraqis are not winners. Iranians are not winners. And depending where you are in the US, Hispanics are not winners, Blacks are not winners.

But you are. Hooray for you. I think the assumed competition is pretty clear.

[Philosophos]

Its important to appreciate that the notion of "winners" assumes competition. Iraqis are not winners. Iranians are not winners. And depending where you are in the US, Hispanics are not winners, Blacks are not winners.

But you are. Hooray for you. I think the assumed competition is pretty clear.


Well I wasn't talking about countries just for kids more particularly kids in western countries because the phenomenon of no competition between them is taking place there.... What are you trying to say with your comment?

[Quail]

I think it depends on what you mean by competition. Competitive sports can be fun, but only if you choose to take part in them. For me, having to run in races and stuff at school was just humiliating, because I suck at sport, but some people really enjoyed it. I enjoy the competitive aspect of Judo, but that's because I like the sport and chose to do it. I think also that competitions in stuff like maths or science could be fun (but again, only for people that choose to take part). The problem with the way in which children are made to compete in schools is that often they're made to compete at things they're not good at, which is obviously going to make them feel demoralised, humiliated, useless, etc.

[Philosophos]

I think it depends on what you mean by competition. Competitive sports can be fun, but only if you choose to take part in them. For me, having to run in races and stuff at school was just humiliating, because I suck at sport, but some people really enjoyed it. I enjoy the competitive aspect of Judo, but that's because I like the sport and chose to do it. I think also that competitions in stuff like maths or science could be fun (but again, only for people that choose to take part). The problem with the way in which children are made to compete in schools is that often they're made to compete at things they're not good at, which is obviously going to make them feel demoralised, humiliated, useless, etc.


Yes ofcourse you must want to take part in something. That's what I think competition is not something bad we are making it bad (as always) and since we couldn't control it we took the easy way of saying: " Don't worry Bill/George/Tom you were the last winner".

We shouldn't hide the truth from kids. When I lost two shots while I was playing for my basketball team in school we lost the game. Noone said: "Don't worry it wasn't your fault blah blah blah". The coach told me that I'm not good in free-shots so he made practise again and again and again until I became better and I scored 7/10 in one match. So I became better and the other team that were competing us didn't commite suicide/ harakiri because they lost....

[Quail]

Yes ofcourse you must want to take part in something. That's what I think competition is not something bad we are making it bad (as always) and since we couldn't control it we took the easy way of saying: " Don't worry Bill/George/Tom you were the last winner".

We shouldn't hide the truth from kids. When I lost two shots while I was playing for my basketball team in school we lost the game. Noone said: "Don't worry it wasn't your fault blah blah blah". The coach told me that I'm not good in free-shots so he made practise again and again and again until I became better and I scored 7/10 in one match. So I became better and the other team that were competing us didn't commite suicide/ harakiri because they lost....
It sounds as though in that situation you were given constructive criticism when you didn't do so well, but when I did sports at school I was forced to participate in things that I wasn't good at, and just made to feel generally shit because I always lost stuff. It wasn't like someone said, "I don't think this is your sport Quail, why don't you try something different?" or, "You could do with working on x, y and z so that you'll be better in future." At schools, I don't think it's really fair to make people who are bad at sport compete in sports just so they can lose and people can make fun of them, which is usually what people who rant about children not competing enough want to happen.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are kids really fooled by the "last winner" concept instead of seeing it for what it is?

Assuming such a thing actually happens. I don't remember anything like that as a kid. I don't think I would have been fooled.

[rednordman]

"Today noone is a loser. Some kids learn the truth about themselves when they are in their twenties from their boss. "get the fuck out boby you are a loser". Do you know what they say to a kid that loses: You were the last winner...."sorry but if i had a penny for every time i heard some bigoted twat say that i would be a millionaire by now. I would ask him this: what benefit is it to tell any child that they are shit and shouldn't even bother? like its just their fate that they are going to suck at everything. Humans ability to compete at anything or levels stems mainly from confidence above all else (that includes ability as well). How the hell are children supposed to develop confidence when they are told to accept the fact that they are no good at something?

[#FF0000]

Are kids really fooled by the "last winner" concept instead of seeing it for what it is?

Assuming such a thing actually happens. I don't remember anything like that as a kid. I don't think I would have been fooled.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is.

Still I don't think 'participation' prizes are a bad thing. I remember as a kid getting one didn't mean much but getting a new dumb cheap trinket was still always a net gain.

People make way too big a thing out of this whole "ABLOOBLOO Y RNT THERE LOSERS NEMORE!?!?!?!?" Just old white dudes being annoying.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, I don't think anyone is.

Still I don't think 'participation' prizes are a bad thing. I remember as a kid getting one didn't mean much but getting a new dumb cheap trinket was still always a net gain.

I remember there would be occasions when me and all my peers would get something, but there were still prizes when they made sense as well, as far as I recall. We'd usually end up swapping and exchanging them anyway.


People make way too big a thing out of this whole "ABLOOBLOO Y RNT THERE LOSERS NEMORE!?!?!?!?" Just old white dudes being annoying.

Over here we have a stock phrase for that fuddy-duddy, looking-back-with-rose-tinted-spectacles attitude; "It's political correctness gone mad!" usually bleated by some hypocritical busybody.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it depends on what you mean by competition. Competitive sports can be fun, but only if you choose to take part in them. For me, having to run in races and stuff at school was just humiliating, because I suck at sport, but some people really enjoyed it. I enjoy the competitive aspect of Judo, but that's because I like the sport and chose to do it. I think also that competitions in stuff like maths or science could be fun (but again, only for people that choose to take part). The problem with the way in which children are made to compete in schools is that often they're made to compete at things they're not good at, which is obviously going to make them feel demoralised, humiliated, useless, etc.

Yeah I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with competition. The problems are what the basis of that competition consist of and what the results are.

If two people are trying to out-hipster eachother with their knowledge of obscure bands, maybe it feels humiliating if you don't know as many bands - but what are the material results - none really, maybe you don't listen to anything but the radio, but know every plot-line to every X-man comic series in the last 2 decades. Or maybe a better example is from a book I read about Native American groups that had little contact with settlers. In this account, people always compared who was good at this or that - making rafts or hunting or making other things. They would mock someone who was no good at hunting, but that person wasn't a pariah, didn't get disrespect for anything but that one task they kinda sucked at and they would admit to the Europeans, "yeah I suck at that". But because everyone's contribution to the group was valued and needed, they may have sucked at this or that, but they were still useful members of the group and judged not on their productive abilities or that one skill but more just on if they were a cool person or not.

The thing about competition in capitalist societeties is that in school it's based on competition which reflects the personal worth of that induvidual. I think the so-called "coddeling" by teachers and parents in trying to not say anyone is a looser is more of a reaction to this overall set up, but obviously a weak one because "not-winning" often is still the same as "loosing" in the eyes of the kids no matter what it's called.

In daily life for workers, obviously the kinds of competition we are forced into by the market has much more direct material consaquences and so unequivocably, competition for jobs and housing and education and so on puts our class in a weak and often dependant situation and also results in workers undermining eachother in the fight over the crumbs tossed out by the ruling class.

I think after a revolution, there will still be pleanty of what we call "healthy competition" that is competition where the stakes are only the task itself and don't have larger raminifications either socially or in estimations of the overall worth of the person competing.

[Baseball]

I think after a revolution, there will still be pleanty of what we call "healthy competition" that is competition where the stakes are only the task itself and don't have larger raminifications either socially or in estimations of the overall worth of the person competing.


Why would a post-revolution society cease being interested in receiving quality, top notch services from the best possible providers? What are the implications to a society which says one teacher is a as good as another, one plumber is as good as another, one doctor is as good as another ect ect?

[Philosophos]

sorry but if i had a penny for every time i heard some bigoted twat say that i would be a millionaire by now. I would ask him this: what benefit is it to tell any child that they are shit and shouldn't even bother? like its just their fate that they are going to suck at everything. Humans ability to compete at anything or levels stems mainly from confidence above all else (that includes ability as well). How the hell are children supposed to develop confidence when they are told to accept the fact that they are no good at something?


My point is not to say to children:"You are a loser, don't do that you can't cuz you are a moron" or anything like that... If you say to the child:"Hey you are not good at this try something else you might be better at it" it's way better than telling him/her:"Keep on going you can do that, participation is the important thing..." Yes participation is the main cause but if you never win at something you are gonna feel as a loser....

[Philosophos]

It sounds as though in that situation you were given constructive criticism when you didn't do so well, but when I did sports at school I was forced to participate in things that I wasn't good at, and just made to feel generally shit because I always lost stuff. It wasn't like someone said, "I don't think this is your sport Quail, why don't you try something different?" or, "You could do with working on x, y and z so that you'll be better in future." At schools, I don't think it's really fair to make people who are bad at sport compete in sports just so they can lose and people can make fun of them, which is usually what people who rant about children not competing enough want to happen.


I'm really sorry that you had this terrible childhood... I was in general pretty lucky because I had some good teachers (I had shitty too but mostly good ones)... They always helped me and not try to make me feel like shit...

Well they tried (male coaches) but it was something that made me even more focused on the sport I was playing and I wanted to show him that he was wrong....

Oh and the basic rule was to never make fun of someone that can't handle it... We always waited for the new kid to come out and start telling jokes and "make fun" of one of our shoots so we could start this teasing that the players have with each other.... there was once somebody that made fun of a new kid that couldn't lift more than 15 kg and the coach sent this somebody back to his home and he left him out of the next game....

[rednordman]

Yes participation is the main cause but if you never win at something you are gonna feel as a loser....completely disagree. fact is that accepting failure is a part of growing up, and it is essential that kids learn how to deal with it, from a young age. After all, we cannot all be super athletes, but that shouldn't stop you from doing something because you are no good. How many of your friends play football (example) and are rubbish, but play it week in and week out even though they loose, just because they love it.

Another thing...if you are no good at something, you are not going to get better by giving up. thats why participation is very important, because what really matters is that you enjoy what you are doing.

[Philosophos]

completely disagree. fact is that accepting failure is a part of growing up, and it is essential that kids learn how to deal with it, from a young age. After all, we cannot all be super athletes, but that shouldn't stop you from doing something because you are no good. How many of your friends play football (example) and are rubbish, but play it week in and week out even though they loose, just because they love it.

Another thing...if you are no good at something, you are not going to get better by giving up. thats why participation is very important, because what really matters is that you enjoy what you are doing.


Ummm.... Accepting failure is different than failing all the time in your whole life... Imagine a kid playing football from the age of ten and keep doing until he becomes 40... What's the point if you fail for thirty years in a row? You can play if you like it I'm not saying the opposite but who is going to do it if he loses all the time? Also it's different to play with friends because you play with them for the fun and the jokes you are going to say to each other... If you play professionally semi-professionally then you are going to give up or they are going to make you give up... Then you go to play with friends... I never implied the things you said like giving up is going to make you better or anything....

[Rafiq]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with competition. Adhering to the liberalist delusion: that capitalism amounts to competition between entrepreneurs, does nothing but give the Liberalists what they want. Communists oppose capitalism not because it thrives off of "greed" or "competition", but because it signifies the dictatorship of the class enemy, of whom are intrinsically the enemies of the proletarian class. Capitalism carries the seeds of it's own destruction, among them, class contradiction.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why would a post-revolution society cease being interested in receiving quality, top notch services from the best possible providers? What are the implications to a society which says one teacher is a as good as another, one plumber is as good as another, one doctor is as good as another ect ect?Competition is not the best or only way that these things can be decided. I'm sure people would still want to place requirements and certain levels of proficiency for some tasks - especially highly skilled ones.

But competition in capitalism doesn't ensure the best products or services are actually produced, only the most profitable ones. Ask Tesla if market competition helps the best ideas actually become the standard. Ask the people who made Beta recorders. Ask people who got the polio shot how pharma competition helped them... oh wait.

Getting rid of privite property protections would also mean that one company couldn't hold the sole ability to use some technology and so people could actually potentially evaluate which is the better method and use that rather than re-create an analogous technology because they can't get the rights to whatever digital code or piece of tech.

As far as service goes, I have no doubt that someone who isn't providing a service because they'll starve otherwise, will be much less stressed and potentially resentful. When people arn't looked down apon for being a waiter, if their whole life at that momement isn't depending on the low-wages they get, I'm pretty sure will get service with scincere smiles and less spit in out food.

[Baseball]

Competition is not the best or only way that these things can be decided. I'm sure people would still want to place requirements and certain levels of proficiency for some tasks - especially highly skilled ones.

Most tasks nowadays require some sort proof of proficiency offered to be able to practice. But within those sphere's, here are definite degrees of better trained and skilled practitioners than others, whom consumers can choose from. There is no reason to assume that this would be any different post-revolution-- that is, all doctors or all plumbers would be equal in skill or talent. So it would seem that doctors or plumbers would still need to appeal to consumers to market their medical or plumbing skils over that of another doctor or plumber.
Unless of course it doesn't matter the quality medical care or plumbing skill being offered. But them what are the implications for the community of that?


But competition in capitalism doesn't ensure the best products or services are actually produced, only the most profitable ones. Ask Tesla if market competition helps the best ideas actually become the standard.

A socialist automobile firm would face the same challenges to producing an electric car as does the modern capitalist one.

[Jason]

Real kids are not politically correct, so they are cruel even if the parents "sugarcoat things". I don't think that would ever change. In fact, I don't think most people have bought into "PC" I mean, for instance, when a football team sucks, the players sure as hell know it, and the fans won't lie to them.

Anyhow, I don't think that "everything is a competition". For instance, should we be shocked if kids are bigoted toward the handicapped, when they view all life as "survival of the fittest"? Something they were taught in the reactionary USA.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Most tasks nowadays require some sort proof of proficiency offered to be able to practice. But within those sphere's, here are definite degrees of better trained and skilled practitioners than others, whom consumers can choose from.When does this actually happen in real life for any major essential services and products. Maybe some people can choose their doctor, but without universal healtchare many people only get to choose which emergency room to visit. Do people choose which products the store stocks their shelves with? Not really, public pressure can cause a chain to reconsider what who they purchase from - or not. Profits are the only real consideration for them and so Coke has more ability to make it profitable for major distributors to sell their products than Joe's Home-made cola.

Basically consumer choice really only regularly comes into play when hiring out some minor contact work - but then liking the guy who fixes your car, assuming that they are average, probably has as much to do with why people choose them than some objective determination of absolute merrit. And even then, there's a hell of a lot of shady mechanics doing good regular business.

If someone provides a horrible service then the use-value of that thing is diminished and so this would apply as much to a feudal guid as a capitalist shop or a worker's communal laundry. The difference in capitalism though is sometimes a bad commodity or service is more pofitable than quality or non-stressed workers who transpose their hatred of their job conditions with their feelings towards their customers.


A socialist automobile firm would face the same challenges to producing an electric car as does the modern capitalist one.No, I meant Tesla the inventor, not the car company. But at any rate, though I know little about the car company, in general electric cars are a good example of how capitalist competition doesn't provide the best service or commodities, but can actually be a hinderance. So auto-companies will never on their own make the kinds of changes needed to ensure that people can still have automobiles and that the world supply of oil isn't stretched to the point of becoming too expensive to profit off of as a fuel source. Even though in a sense, they would be ensuring future profits and production ability if the auto-infrastructure was rapidly changed. But due to competition, the auto industry is locked into the now still cheaper and less overhead-demanding and already developed model. Next quarter's profits over-ride their long-term viability - not to mention the environment's stability.

Even without socialism, other models for amassing surplus such as in China, can make long-term plans because they use the state to overcome some of the problems caused by competition between capitalist firms. Something like the Hoover Dam or freeways aren't profitable in the short term even though they benifit industry - so even within the capitalist system, the ruling classes sometimes have to figure out ways to get around market competition in order to make advances.

[Regicollis]

Competition as such is not a bad thing. The current bourgeois fetish for competition on the other hand is. We have a perverted culture where failing at sports or math translates into failing as a human being for children as well as adults.

A healthy culture of competition requires a more realistic view on things. Much could be gained if we as a society recognised that being bad at football doesn't mean you suck in general - just that you suck at football.

There is no point in sugar-coating a defeat to children. They are not retarded and will know you are lying. As a child I never met anyone who took the "the important thing is to participate, not to win" thing seriously. Instead giving honest constructive criticism is a much better way of doing things since it acknowledges reality in a way that is respectful to the children.

We should also stop forcing competition into places where it doesn't make sense. Competition is not the only way to do things. We should also nurture cooperative ways of play and problem-solving.

[Philosophos]

Competition as such is not a bad thing. The current bourgeois fetish for competition on the other hand is. We have a perverted culture where failing at sports or math translates into failing as a human being for children as well as adults.

A healthy culture of competition requires a more realistic view on things. Much could be gained if we as a society recognised that being bad at football doesn't mean you suck in general - just that you suck at football.

There is no point in sugar-coating a defeat to children. They are not retarded and will know you are lying. As a child I never met anyone who took the "the important thing is to participate, not to win" thing seriously. Instead giving honest constructive criticism is a much better way of doing things since it acknowledges reality in a way that is respectful to the children.

We should also stop forcing competition into places where it doesn't make sense. Competition is not the only way to do things. We should also nurture cooperative ways of play and problem-solving.


Yes I agree... Also if you know that you suck at something and you make fun of it it's the ultimate defense against the teasing of other people. You show them that you have no problem because you suck at football or anything else so they can't make fun of you about it... You already don't mind

[Jason]

We have a perverted culture where failing at sports or math translates into failing as a human being for children as well as adults.



In the US, failing at sports angers people, but failing at math doesn't bother most people. Obviously, since so many math related jobs are available, but nobody can do them.