Why The Competition? Why Not Cooperate?

Competition is never the norm. It's a heritage, lying deep in our gene, when we try to compete for shelter, mating, food, etc before the present days. Its when, if we don't compete, we'll die. While still carved within our gene, it's not the best way anymore; at least for those whom have abundant food, have a shelter, and perhaps a spouse (if you want one). Cooperation is the replacement.

When we compete, we're trying to fight for something. Perhaps there's a point system to record who's high in the leaderboard, and rewards only the top N participants (where really, N is a small number, in most competition). How bout the rest? They got nothing! Where are their efforts? In the rubbish bin! But who cares? Competition only retain the top players; the rest? Sorry, you don't have a place here. Oh, you have no more money to pay for food? None of my business.

To further evolve humanity as a whole, and not only the top 1% or even less (while leaving the rest starve to dead because they don't get anything), it's important to distribute rewards to each and every person whom put in their effort to participate (if they don't put in effort, sure, they don't get anything, and don't expect them to get anything). It's equity, it's fairness, it's a fair share between everyone, it's a prove that the organizer encourages and appreciate their effort and participation; it's an effort to not keep only the top players, but everyone involved.

If you ever compete, have you heard people speaking "Haish, I should've gotten 2nd place, but now I got 5th because ____" (some external factors), or similar phrases. They repeat the phrases in the upcoming days, weeks, or even months! Competition raises happiness (temporary mostly, rarely long-term) to the top players whom got rewarded, and raises envy, jealousy, anger, unwillingness, and other negative emotions among the rest. Even those with price might feel these negative emtions if they thought they might get higher price (greed, and perhaps other emotions). Negative emotions in large aren't superb for moving the society forward, towards a higher evolutionized society. What says if the majority feels negative towards something.

In the name of team-building game, it's the same reasoning. If these negative emotions build up, do you think we can build a good team? On the surface, people might be "Eh, congratulations for your 1st place!" but on the inside, they feel negative (if they participated). Supposed they don't feel negative, they feel satisfied with their price, and they still congratulate the person: "Congratulations for your 1st place!", what would the 1st place person feels after listening to that phrase a couple of times, or many times? He/she starts thinking that he/she should get 1st place in every other competitions! As if, "Of course I should get 1st, because I was 1st before!" goes without saying. The nose goes high, and negative emotion fills (pride, arrogance, vanity). It's difficult to be humble after you feel arrogance: that you're above everyone around you, that you stands higher than everyone around you.

Consider Debate. Try, avoid as much as possible, from debating for something. The only time you debate is when the topics concentrate on a fact. For example, in Physics, we debate (without focusing on the person debating) for a particular fact, backed up with facts and formulas and equations, etc, to prove what we debate for is not wrong (we're not trying to prove the fact is correct, but that we don't have something to disprove the fact). If you instead debate for personal matters, in social interactions, you're doomed. Why do friends/spouse/parent-children fight each other? Because they debate. They talk over each other, and what they speak isn't listened by the others. What each party wants instead, is that people care about them, listens to them, irregardless of what they debate for is right or wrong. They could be wrong, they could apologize and accept their wrongness; but they need to be listened to, by someone whom care for them, care about them, and that they care about. Especially for people like me whom are emotional-based, if you speak with one, trying to convince via "logic-based/fact-based", it doesn't work. One won't agree with you irregardless of whether you're correct or wrong until you can listen to oneself emotionally. The emotion is not there, so everything is wrong (irregardless of the facts).

And the benefits of cooperations? It benefits everyone! When everyone gets fairly treated, you expect positive emotions to spread, and people willing to come together to think of something better without worrying whether they will not be rewarded or not. People can stop worrying about rewards and focus on the problem at hand. People knows they're fairly treated (for the amount of effort they put in) and accept what they get, and continue to contribute as they could get more. (Of course, it's not perfect; people whom're greedy never gets satisfied, so don't bother about them: they're insatiable.)

Conclusion

Aims to cooperate, not compete. Aims to converse, not debate. Look out for situations and decide which solution is better. Usually, cooperation works. And usually, conversation ends up with both parties happier than debate.

Extra note: conversation (a.k.a discussion) isn't the best, but it's good enough. According to "The 6 Secrets of a Lasting Relationship" by Mark Goulston, communication takes place at 4 different levels:

• Diatribe -- talking over each other. (talking to the air as if the other parties doesn't exist)

• Debate -- talking at each other (with no one really listening). (I'm right, you're wrong)

• Discussion -- talking to each other in a calm, pleasant manner. Usually more logical than emotional, and you don't necessary have to agree with the other party, just that they have their say that you listened to, and you have your say that they listened to. Both parties understand each other logically.

• Dialogue -- talking with each other. It's a communication of emotions plus logical. Unlike discussions which communicate logic mostly, here we communicate also emotions. We try to understand how the other person feels, and how we can embrace their feelings. We care about how each other feels.

If can, aim for dialogue, avoid diatribe.