What the hell is wrong with competition?

[Twiglett]

I hate this whole ooo non-competitive sports, we're not competitive

we need to be able to teach children to play properly, to be gracious when winning, to be noble in defeat

we need to teach them how they should always do their best and people are different and have different abilities, strengths

we need to teach them that by practicing and trying hard they too MIGHT win .. or they'll certainly do better

I cannot stand the whole non-competitive ethos .. it only comes from adults

Children are the MOST competitive of all

personally I care that my GP is good and knows her stuff .. and I've seen some crap GPs .. I care that s/he has the right temprement to do the job .. and I've seen many who don't ... I care that she is suited to the task .. and I know many who aren't

yeah twig, but how does competition achieve that?

I don't care over much if my GP is the best in the world, I just want her to be competant.

maybe this is the thing

competition, to me, is about being the best.

competance, otoh, is about being good enough. You can certainly fail to be competant. I think it absolutely right that kids should be expected to be competant. But they can all be competant, my competance is not a reflection on yours.

Competition is ok and many children are naturally competitive. I think it's fine that kids want to be the best at things and gradually get a sense of whether or not that's realistic by noticing how others around them are doing and by sometimes competing directly against others.

But I don't like the message that competition should be the sole and fundamental basis of living a good life. I don't want my child to think that he is a better person than Z because he is 3 books ahead on the reading scheme or that he is inferior to P because she is better at maths and wins all the races in the playground. I also think that a strongly competitive ethos overlooks the effect of constantly coming last on children who aren't particularly good at anything and are extremely unlikely ever to win at any of the range of competitive activities offered. And then there is the potential impact on kids who are effortless winners at many or most things. Both situations can be bad for the children concerned emotionally, imo. I don't think this means we should ban races with winners or poetry competitions but I do think we should be careful that these things are not the only way for children to feel successful or be offered lots of praise.

I really, really, really want my children to get the message that they should always try hard and do their very best and follow their dreams and I don't want them to shy away from competition per se. But I also desperately want them to have a sense of the value of every human person, regardless of supposed "success" in life. Encouraging kids to view unbridled competition as a sole driving force- and to constantly compare themselves with others in every area- can be at odds with that, imo, and make for children who grow up both personally insecure and not very nice. I don't want my kids to grow up thinking it's ok to live in a dog eat dog world and or that people can be essentially divided into winners and losers. In the black and white world of childhood competitiveness I think winning/talented=good person is a message that can need challenging. Gently, and without making kids think that it's wrong to want to win.

"But I don't like the message that competition should be the sole and fundamental basis of living a good life."

I don't think anyone would agree with that sm but likewise i don't like the message that 'competition' is a bad thing and should be stamped out forthwith in case someone gets upset. It's the learning how to succeed AND take defeat gracefully that's the important bit.

couldn't have said it better myself Twiglett!

I don't think it's innate, Twig. I think very very little is actually innate. Children raised by wolves run on all fours and grow hair on their bodies. Children raised in our ultra-competitive meritocracy learn to be highly competitive.

am shocked that you think we actually live in an ultra-competitive meritocracy

I think what I'm saying above all is that we need to be able to teach our children to

1. put in the effort
2. practice, practice, practice
3. be gracious winners
4. be good losers
5. do whatever they're told, eat all their dinner even the sprouts and go to bed without asking

Then get a rally highly paid job so that they can look after us in our dotage

I agree that we live in a meritocracy, but that's to be expected from humans don't you think?

Are you shocked, truly, Twig? I think modern life is much more competitive than it would be in an ideal world (well, in Franny's ideal world )

in an ideal world we would live in a meritocracy

I don't believe we do though

I think that bits of the UK are more meritocratic than others.

For example dh is in the RAF. It doesn't matter how posh your family is, if you can't fly well enough to pass the course, you fail. I realise that where you come from is still probably an issue with some regements in the Army.

I constantly push the kids I work with towards personal excellence....ie their personal best

Good post Scummy.

Twig, we even decided we WOULDN'T have a house rule of

"Do as you're told" because we thought it was fair enough if anyone wanted to challenge something they were asked to do (nearly typed 'a direct order' then, then realised it made it sound like a boot camp, when clearly it is not!) Don't get me wrong, we don't have

Go to bed
NO!
Oh. Why don't you want to? Do you want to talk about it?
Nothing like that but it is ok to not always 'do as you're told'

I was joking

my kids often win silly arguments .. I feel sometimes if they can give me a valid reason, or even butter me up the right way .. it doesn't hurt them to realise that they can negotiate some things

DS is a dab hand at 'the most beautiful and wise and clever mummy in the whole wide world'

Personally I have a bit of a horror of competitiveness. I absolutely hate it, always have. It is one of the things I most dislike in other people - makes me back off strongly. I couldn't care less about 'beating' other people to anything. I like being with my children because I'm not competitive with them and they aren't competitive with me - it's a blooming relief. Of course I agree that children should be guided towards good manners, kindness, forgiveness, understanding and acceptance that people are all different, but I honestly don't understand why that is best fostered by encouraging competition. I want my children to do the best they can for themselves, so they get the most out of their lives. I want them to develop skills that they enjoy for their own sake - whether that is an appreciation of art or literature, or the ability to ski or run. But I want them to do those things if they want to, for the sheer pleasure of doing them, not as a way of 'beating' other people. Seeing toddlers learning to jump for the sheer joy of jumping is wonderful. They don't care how high or far other people jump, they just love to jump. I think being able to carry that spirit into adulthood would make everyone a bit happier.

ha ha sorry Twig!

FrannyandZoey dont you think things would have been much more about competition in a more natural world. After all if you believe Darwin isnt that why we are here? I think we mirror that in possibly unhealthy ways at times but competition is a fact of life and teaching kids to win well and lose well are good traits to encourage.

Stephanie in a more natural world we would all be hitting each other with axes. We have the benefits of civilisation now and don't have to behave in ways that are to the detriment of society as a whole.

this summer my ds said "mum its sports day but the teacher says its not the winning that matters just the taking part"

Ha rubbish i say "its ok if you lose but it feels fantastic to win" "so go for it and be a winner"
I am rather competitive myself and made sure i beat the other mums in the parents races.. i dont think there is anything wrong with competition..

Aeons ago, our ancestors were probably actually very co-operative indeed. Raising kids as part of an extended family grouping and foraging for food together was by far the most effective way to ensure that as many kids as possible survived to adulthood. In many societies the quickest sure fire route to death is exclusion from the tribe.

Natural selection is a lot more complex than just animals competing for scarce resources. Often it makes sense for them to actually co-operate or even display altrusic behaviour and thats exactly how early humans probably behaved.

Franny makes a good point though-even if that were how our ancestors behaved, so what? We're meant to be "civilised"!

Darwinianism has nothing to do with competition! It has to do with fitness for purpose. ie, it isn't necessarily the biggest, fiercest animal that survives, it is the one that best adapts itself to its environment.
I'm sorry but I would be quite worried about myself if I was getting excited about racing a lot of other middle aged ladies at a school sports day!
I not a natural sportswoman or politician, I suspect.

Yes, there is even talk of Darwianian selection of the altruistic gene over more aggressive genes. Cooperation makes much more sense for the survival of the species than out and out competitiveness. If, say, two people working together with a large net can catch 100 fish, but the same two working competitively against each other with spears can only catch 20, then clearly competitiveness would not confer an advantage.

quick question...What do you consider to be middle aged?

sorell, is that the 'selfish gene' thing?

If so, it points out that altruism tends to be most common with others of your family....thus helping the continuation of shared genes.