In 2008, an interviewer admitted to Alfie Kohn that she considers herself a competitive person. “As long as you acknowledge that’s a problem to be solved; it’s not a good thing about us,” he responded. “People say to me, ‘Oh I’m really a competitive person,’ not realizing that it’s as if they’re saying, ‘I have a drinking problem.”
Competition, which Kohn defines as any situation where one person can succeed only when others fail, seems to be something of a state religion in the United States. But Kohn is convinced that we’ve all bought into dangerous myths about the value of competition in our personal lives, workplaces, society, and economic system. He laid out his arguments in his 1986 book No Contest: The Case Against Competition
He insists that competition is not human nature; it’s something we learn. “The message that competition is appropriate, desirable, required, and even unavoidable is drummed into us from nursery school to graduate school; it is the subtext of every lesson,” he writes.
And according to Kohn, competition undermines self-esteem, destroys relationships, thwarts productivity, and discourages excellence, and he cites more than a hundred studies to back up his assertions.
I didn’t play competitive sports, but I’m all too familiar with the academic awards assemblies Kohn rails against. During my 17 years in school, I marched onto stages to collect an assortment of shiny pins, engraved dictionaries, and gold-sealed certificates. Kohn argues that honors like the ones I won make the vast majority of students feel like losers. More surprisingly, he insists they’re just as toxic for the winners, arguing that my victories may have made me into a more “cautious, obedient” person.
I would like to disagree, except I see Kohn’s point. I remember feeling an almost absurd fear of academic failure, especially when I was very young; Kohn argues that it’s no surprise that getting good grades or winning awards would breed anxiety. “Winning offers no genuine comfort, because there is no competitive activity for which victory is permanent.”
Of course, the competitions didn’t end when I got home from school. Like most Americans, my childhood was crammed with kickball tournaments, family game nights, three-legged races, trivia contests, and scavenger hunts. When I think about it, a lot of those activities weren’t exactly fun, and many were downright stressful.
Kohn argues that growing up in a competitive society has dangerous implications. We can become almost psychotic in our inability to recognize when being competitive is harming us. “Having thoroughly assimilated the attitude that the better I do, the worse you do (and vice versa), we are not open to mutually advantageous agreement or cooperation of any kind. The costs can be high.” Think: nuclear war and environmental degradation.
Okay, I’m convinced. Sign me up for Competitors Anonymous. I’ll start looking for more opportunities to share and collaborate with other writers. My husband and I will go on walks instead of competing in tennis matches; we’ll work on crossword puzzles together instead of vying against each other in Scrabble games.
Except, there’s just one major challenge. We’re parents. And at two, our son is toddling toward Pin the Tail on the Donkey, Musical Chairs, spelling bees, honor rolls, awards ceremonies, soccer matches, and field days. I’m convinced learning to share, cooperate, and collaborate will serve him well in the future, if blogs, wikis, open source software, and the Creative Commons are any indication. But is it really possible to teach a child those skills in our uber-competitive society?
Kohn offers some advice to parents in No Contest and a few of his other articles and interviews on the subject. Here are six tips I gleaned from him:
1. Ditch organized sports:Instead of signing your kids up for soccer or tennis lessons, encourage activities that don’t create winners and losers. Swimming, walking, running, and playing outside can all be healthy non-competitive activities. Kohn also recommends Terry Orlick’s Cooperative Sports and Games Book
2. Replace competitive board games: Kohn says it’s no surprise that kids cheat and fight when they’re going head to head at Checkers or Chutes and Ladders. He recommends that parents purchase board games from Family Pastimes, a Canadian Company started by Jim Deacove. According to their website, “Players help each other climb a mountain, make a community, bring in the harvest, complete a space exploration... They are never against each other.”
3. Pay attention to praise: Most of us, especially those of us “marinated in the myths” of competition, tend to respond more enthusiastically when our kids win something than when they do their best or just have fun. But Kohn is insistent that a parent’s love and acceptance must never be conditional on success or anything else.
4. Encourage sibling cooperation: Kohn points out that often parents use innocuous-seeming contests to cajole their kids into action, like, “The last one to the car is a rotten egg.” or “The first one in his pajamas gets a treat.” Instead of setting up siblings to compete against each other, Kohn advises that parents encourage cooperation: “Let’s see how fast we can clean up together.”
5. Get involved in your child’s school: In one interview, Kohn jokes that if American society ever catches on to the downside of competition, we’ll see a spate of self help tomes, like How to Be a Less Competitive You, instead of a collective movement to transform our society into a less competitive one. But he hopes that parents will get together, find out what’s going on in their children’s classrooms, and complain about assignments and activities that needlessly pit kids against each other.
6. Be a good role model: Of course, no matter how many cooperative games we introduce, if our kids see us being competitive with our spouses, siblings, friends, and coworkers, they’ll probably be competitive too.
Comments
Jeremy Adam Smith wrote on 05.17.10, 5:52pm:
Wait...aliens are behind the Gulf of Mexico oil spill!? Share the link, man. I have to read that.
On the substance of what you're saying, I don't have much to say: The way you're saying it, however, clearly violates our community guidelines: http://shareable.net/community-guidelines
That said, I like the thing so much about the aliens that I'm going to leave the comment be. Please do share that link. But for future reference, it's not cool on Shareable.net to imply that people are dumb just because they disagree with you.
Jeremy Adam Smith
www.jeremyadamsmith.com
Neal Gorenflo wrote on 05.17.10, 6:12pm:
You know, I love competition and cooperation, probably equally. I like what each bring out in me.
There's nothing that focuses the mind like competition. And there's nothing like cooperation to exercise your interpersonal skills.
This being said, I agree with the sentiment that we've gone a little overboard in the US with the emphasis on competition when it comes to kids, school, and the economy. Overheated competitiveness can drive kids out of healthy activities even if they're really good at them. And unregulated competitive markets actually result in monopolies in the end. The paradox is that you have to regulate them to keep competition alive.
In any case, I wouldn't go as far as Abby, but I appreciate some of the ideas in the piece. I would like to teach my son about both competition and cooperation, and now I have some ideas for the later. I don't know of any other place where I would get such information.
I would have like to seen a different title for this piece because to some it must sound like we're advocating practices that puts kids at a disadvantage when there's tips here that can help kids thrive. Cooperation is a key skill in a creative, knowledge-based economy. I think something affirmative like "How to Instill a Win-Win Mindset in Your Kids" might translate better into the mainstream, which we strive for at Shareable.
And I agree with Jeremy. Let's have a discussion where we can learn something. We like constructive criticism.
Abby Quillen wrote on 05.17.10, 6:59pm:
Wow, that's an impassioned response. I was sort of hoping Kohn's ideas would generate some controversy, since they're pretty against the grain. But I hope everyone who's appalled or intrigued will go look at Kohn's extensive body of research on the subject.
I also agree with Neil about the title of the piece. None of us wants a child who can't hold his own. The idea is raising a child who's capable of seeing when sharing, cooperating, and collaborating will actually benefit him (and society) more than competing.
It's a new economy, and if you look at Skype, Linux, or Wikipedia, I think there's a good case to be made that the child who learns how to look at his peers as possible collaborators instead of people to beat may thrive better in it.
Andy wrote on 05.18.10, 6:52am:
I'm having some trouble with the thesis of this article, but maybe I'm just put off by some of the comments made by Mr. Kohn. I don't believe in "indoctrinating" competitiveness, and I know there are some parents who do that. I also don't believe in labeling what for some kids is a natural trait as a fault, and trying to deprogram it. That's an awfully slippery slope.
Put another way: Anyone who writes "competition is not human nature; it’s something we learn" is someone who hasn't spent any time with my son....
Aaron T. wrote on 05.18.10, 7:09am:
As a high-school educator, I am familiar with Kohn's philosophies and apply them in part in my practice and I'm glad Quillen has brought Kohn up in her column. In this era of competition among students and especially among schools we are likely to forget that the purpose of public education is to raise the abilities of every student, not just those who are able to fight for the resources.
In the classroom I've found that competition hinders learning more than it helps. At both ends of the competitive spectrum there are students who don't think they can compete and thus don't participate, and students who are so competitive that they won't participate unless they are sure they will win. In the end, if you visit your child's school as Quillen suggests, you'll find that competition usually leads to uninvolved students, and those who don't participate won't learn.
Regarding lessons on winning and losing and competition as a means to getting what you want, I emphasize an attempt to do the best that you can -- a sort of competition with one's self. Think of the different approaches a child will take when a she or he seeks to put her or his best efforts forth, as compared to the tactics employed by one who is concerned with beating out others. The first emphasizes growth and the other emphasizes focus on the opponent's inadequacies.
Finally I want to take the editor of this site to task for letting the above comment stay posted. Aaron's contributions are vitriolic and unproductive: about as much as an article on alien involvement in the oil rig explosion. If I want that sort of rubbish I'll go to the grocery store and buy a copy of "The Sun."
I went to Aaron's site and found that he's a green libertarian. His ideology gives him the opportunity to contribute good contrasting ideas, but instead he chooses to be mean and childish. Certainly un-Shareable. I hope to see his comment deleted soon as it absolutely violates this magazines editorial rules.
chicago pop wrote on 05.18.10, 7:19am:
Competition is fine if you have a culture of sportsmanship. And sportsmanship, to echo what some of the folks above have said, requires being able to take a back seat, helping out the team, and knowing how to be a gracious loser as much as enjoying the thrill of victory and the limelight. These things have to be taught be parents, adults, and peers.
If all of those things come in a package, I don't think anyone would object. Expand all that to a metaphorical model of ideal social and economic relations, and we'd probably have far fewer problems in those areas than we do now. The argument in this piece is black-and-white in an easy,60's kind of way (capitalist! fascist! competitive! wrong!) but it is useful to highlight unthinking acceptance of needlessly antagonistic aspects of our kids' lives.
Some kids (boys) may seem more competitive by nature, or perhaps even aggressive. But the virtues that can come with these traits are nullified if they don't temper those kids' instincts to want to be "better" "stronger" "smarter" "have more stuff" or a "cooler dad".
Abby Quillen wrote on 05.18.10, 8:35am:
It's great to see some conversations happening here!
Andy, Kohn does have a way of pushing buttons, doesn't he? It makes him more entertaining to read, but I do think it can get in the way of his message. I spent some time on a playground with a group of three and four year olds yesterday. The kids are in a Waldorf daycare, and my son and I end up at the park at the same time as them quite often. They come to the playground holding hands and singing songs, with flower chains in their hair. But, when their teachers walk away, I can't believe what a dog-eat-dog, competitive world that park turns into, with kids fighting, calling each other names, ostracizing each other, etc. In this case, it seems to mostly be the girls. So I definitely see your point about human nature. But I also think Alfie Kohn makes a good point that it is just as much in our nature to be cooperative and share as it is to compete, but we tend to undervalue the importance of those traits and that many people use the human nature card to keep the status quo alive, instead of taking a hard look at the actual evidence or working to make society more just.
Aaron T., that's so interesting about competition's effects in the classroom. Honestly, grades and awards were such a huge part of my schooling and life for so long that I can't quite imagine schools without those things. But Kohn's book challenged my assumptions about their benefit, with reams of compelling research.
Chicago Pop, I'm taking a more nuanced approach to competition than I may have let on in this piece. I have absolutely no fear that my son will not learn how to win and lose. Honestly, he's already been the object of his share of competitions in our parenting group, at the playground, and in story time about whose baby crawls first, walks first, says the first word, etc. etc. Competing is something every American child will learn. What I'm hoping is to also provide opportunities for him to learn about the value of cooperation and collaboration.
Jeremy Adam Smith wrote on 05.18.10, 9:19am:
I'm planning to write a follow-up to this piece, but for now I'd like to offer a meta-observation: We are obviously seethingly uncomfortable with discussions about the place of competition in our lives. It's not hard to figure out why: As Americans, we've largely advanced through competitive systems; thus we feel invested in them; thus we feel personally attacked when competitive systems are called into question.
I'll give an example that's close to home: I was recently awarded the hyper-competitive Knight fellowship at Stanford. I competed for it, oh yes I did. I positioned myself against my competitors, I pushed my advantages and minimized my weaknesses. And in the end, I (and 11 other people) won, and everybody else lost, and I was quite pleased with that outcome. Why not? It worked for me. But if someone questioned the competitive process involved--if they suggested that the competition was meaningless and arbitrary and more a matter of luck than skill or accomplishment -- I might feel uncomfortable and defensive (depending on how they framed it). To attack the process that made me a winner would be to suggest that I didn't deserve to be a winner. This feeling filters from individual minds to our society as a collective: We look at America's wealth and many of us have to believe that it is the result of some special virtue.
Many (not all) Americans are trained all our lives to succeed, to advance, to compete, to win. Our economic system, by definition, is designed to produce winners and losers, and the consequences of ending up on the losing side are profoundly negative. The winners inevitably look down on the losers--which I think is Kohn's fundamental point, a truly radical one in an American context. We live a zero-sum game. But other systems are possible--see, for example, the interview we posted today with Tendayi Viki about the commons in Africa: http://shareable.net/blog/the-african-commons (I suspect that Viki's villagers would find this entire discussion to be amusingly neurotic.)
One of things I think is interesting about this interview is that Viki doesn't paint the African commons in black and white terms--he acknowledges how it can limit wealth creation and result in cronyism. Kohn can be faulted, I think, for not being nuanced enough in the way he talks about the benefits of cooperation (though those among us who haven't actually read his books should be cautious in making that criticism). One of the reasons why utopia is so very difficult to achieve is that we can't seem to escape social laws of thermodynamics; energy changes form but it can't be created or destroyed; action and reaction are constants in human life. There are always trade offs.
Abby hits the nail on the head when she acknowledges that competitive and cooperative instincts co-exist within us all, to greater or lesser degrees; it is without question part of our evolutionary heritage. (For more about that, you might see the book I recently edited with Dacher Kelter and Jason Marsh, "The Compassionate Instinct," published by WW Norton.) However, we can design our societies to encourage certain traits and discourage others. Kohn's argument (as I understand it) is not that competition is inhuman; it's that in our culture we've elevated the competitive instinct too high and taken it too far, with destructive results.
Last note: I'd be cautious about how we interpret the behavior of young children; we always see them through a culturally conditioned lens, subject to cognitive biases like confirmation bias and ultimate attribution error, that doesn't always stand the test of empirical reality. They may be "competing" when they fight over toys, but they are doing other things as well, such as learning set boundaries and communicate their needs. We can see the glass as half empty (survival of the fittest!) or as half full (a step in the process of learning to share, which is essential for survival). The question, to get back to the original point of this blog entry, is what traits we want to develop as parents and teachers. In the end, regardless of how I feel about Kohn as a writer, I personally come down on the side of cooperation, and I think these are useful tips.
Jeremy Adam Smith
www.jeremyadamsmith.com
Sadie wrote on 05.18.10, 9:21am:
I'm a parent of a 7 year old and also grew up in the god old usa. I absolutely believe that competition and winners and losers is enshrined in how we understand the american dream, and I think it's a huge problem. I agree with the commenter who pointed out the importance of sportsmanship(sic); i think there are ways that competition can be ok. But the way we do it in the us is that we compete, and the winners are awesome and the losers are worthless, there is no in between, and everyone deserves what they get, and empathy is a bad idea that indicates weakness. I think it contributes to the high stakes social situations that kids struggle with and that really wrecks childhood and adolescence for many of us, and it's not a huge leap to draw connections between how socio-economic issues play out as well. Competition breeds an 'everyone for themselves" mentality, and I think that's pretty awful.
I think part of the reason that people react so so strongly to a critique of competition is because of the way that competition has been woven into the fabric of our society and is always always presented as 'the way things are" and also, as an unquestionably good thing. There are many societies and situations that value cooperation and benefit from cooperation; mutual aid is common in the animal world as well, Darwin notwithstanding.
It's worth noting that Alfie Kohn generally grounds his arguments in evidence from scientific studies rather than just on what he thinks or feels is right...you could say he's using science as his ideological foundation, but I'd prefer that to religion or group think or free market capitalist thought.
I find it impossible to shield my kid from competitiveness, and knowing how to cope with it is a survival skill, but my kid is more oriented toward cooperating than the average kid, and is excelling academically and doing fine socially.
anytime people are offended that a concept is being called into question, I think it's a good time to check why we think what we think, why we believe that things just are a certain way, and to experiment with being open minded about other possibilities.
Jeremy Adam Smith wrote on 05.18.10, 9:36am:
While the conversation has moved on, I should address the question of whether it was right to allow Aaron's unfortunate first comment to stand: Aaron has actually left 8 or 9 comments on this site over the past few months, and I've deleted about 7 of them for violating our community guidelines. So in general, I am not lenient with this fellow, and, FYI, I routinely delete rude or otherwise unwanted comments.
But I let this one stay. I didn't actually allow the comment to stand because I liked the alien-oil spill reference; that was my attempt to lighten the mood and move on, which, um, some might think didn't work. I accept responsibility for my all-too-human judgement. But I allowed it to stand because I think lots of folks, including many core members of the Shareable community, would agree with the substance of what Aaron is saying here: that competition is good and productive. In this case (unlike similar cases), I left it up to the community to denounce his tone and regulate itself, and I think that work has been done. I'd like to thank everyone for keeping the discussion thoughtful and forward-moving.
Jeremy Adam Smith
www.jeremyadamsmith.com
Abby Quillen wrote on 05.18.10, 1:12pm:
Thanks for leaving a comment, Sadie. I'm learning that defending Alfie Kohn's theories can be a lonely place; it's good to hear from another person who's familiar with him. I agree that when an idea really offends you, it's probably a good time to question your assumptions and look at the evidence.
I wasn't on board with Kohn's ideas when I picked up his book, mostly because as Jeremy says, I thought competition had served me pretty well thus far. But as I read study after study demonstrating that people actually perform better and are more satisfied with their work when they are not competing, I started to question my assumptions.
I'd actually argue that the kind of competition Jeremy's talking about, where a bunch of people apply for a scholarship or job, and the goal is finding the person who is the best fit, is a necessary and beneficial form of competition. We need to find the most competent people for positions, and I can't think of a better way to do that.
But pitting preschool-aged kids against each other in pointless games like Musical Chairs or Red Rover, or designing workplaces where people or departments are so competitive that they don't share information or collaborate on projects, or playing games or sports in your leisure time that make you feel angry or awful a lot of the time - I fail to see how those forms of competition benefit any of us much. And I think it would serve us well to look at the competitions themselves and question their benefit in our lives and society, which is what Alfie Kohn, armed with reams of research, pushes us to do.
So, yeah, Kohn's arguments are pretty radical and perhaps not nuanced enough, but as Chicago Pop pointed out above, they're useful if they make you look at the evidence and question your assumptions.
As for Aaron's comment, I'm all for arguments about the value of competition. I'm a big fan of critical thinking whether people agree with me or not. But personal attacks and name-calling? Not so much.
qmixalot wrote on 05.18.10, 7:47pm:
I disagree with Kohn in the belief that competition is taught, I think it is innate to us. But I do agree that we are a stronger society if we learn to curb our enthusiasm to be better than someone else just for the sake of feeling good about ourselves. It is usually short-lived and allows for those around us to be hurt. It creates insensitivity and needless agony. There is no doubt that there is strength in working together and building something as a team. People get more emotionally out of being part of a group and seeing their strengths played upon and their weaknesses minimized. Over and over again we see socialized nations (who believe in sharing and minimizing individual competition) rank the highest in having the happiest longest-living population. Might we for just a minute, start thinking about what is as our best interest as a group (or a nation) and stop thinking about what is best for me. Thank you Quillen for raising awareness to what is considered a very fundamental way of American life and making us question if it should stay that way.
Abby Quillen wrote on 05.19.10, 3:30pm:
Qmixalot, thanks for your comment.
A few final thoughts: I intended this piece to be a concise, approachable summary of Kohn’s arguments in No Contest, a few of my reactions to them, and some tips on minimizing competition in our kids’ lives. Kohn’s ideas and my own are both far more complex than what I presented here, and I’m pleased that the comments have spurred some conversation on the topic.
As far as the nature/ nurture question, competition, like most human behaviors, almost certainly results from a combination of both. But, as qmixalot points out, just because a behavior is “natural” doesn’t mean it is desirable, and it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t try to create a society that discourages it. (Take murder, rape, suicide, infanticide, etc.)
Arguments that competition is necessary, builds character, increases self-esteem, and motivates people to perform their best deserve our scrutiny, because as Kohn demonstrates in his book, they do not stand up to scientific research. (One example: In a 1981 meta-analysis of 122 studies, 65% studies found that cooperating produced higher achievement than competition; 8% found the reverse; and 36% found no difference at all. Kohn presents many more studies like this.)
Such arguments also often don’t hold up to empirical evidence. (As I noted in the piece, winning often causes anxiety and fear of failure, not higher self-esteem. Many good students take easier classes to keep a high grade point average rather than being motivated to pursue excellence. And the most competitive amongst us often don’t exactly shine when it comes to character.)
As far as how we could design a less competitive society? Qmixalot makes a great point: there are plenty of models around the world that we might learn from.
Neal Gorenflo wrote on 05.19.10, 4:04pm:
The success and cooperative methods of Finnish public schools support Kohn's argument.
Here's a WSJ article on it:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120425355065601997.html
Franzscissorhands wrote on 05.27.10, 7:02pm:
To Aaron: I couldn't agree less. "Competition is what makes things happen." Well, competition might encourage people to do things, but often it also breeds hate. Competition increases egotism, and the urge to further increase the gap between oneself and the others. Many times the easiest way to do that is by having others loose while you win. So, competition often leads people to sabotage other people's achievements. So no, competition is often NOT what makes things happen. And if Kohn cited "more than a hundred studies to back up his assertions" I'm sure we can all find thousands more. To prove my point: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870369180457525453338693313...
Sarah Noack wrote on 06.17.10, 4:05pm:
Interesting article. I consider myself both a competitive and a cooperative person. I don't think they are mutually exclusive, or that you can suppress the instinct to be competitive any more than we can suppress (or demonize) sexual preference. I don't see it as an evil, just a personality trait that can either dominate someone in a negative way, or be used to create excitement and the beneficial kind of tension we need to feel motivated to create sometimes.
I think it is possible to share and compete in healthy ways, at once. Sports, although I am not a fan at ALL myself, are an example of this.
I see things in terms of metaphysics and archetypes as well. In every metaphysical model from astrology to Enneagram, there is some type of archetype that deals with this competitive spirit and helps people to learn to channel it in healthy ways.
My own competitive spirit is something that helps me write better, design better, and demand more of myself creatively. When it goes awry, it causes me to beat myself up when someone is "better than me," or believe I need to prove myself worthy in order to be lovable. Others may use their competitive spirit to undermine others. Neither of these, I think we can all agree, are beneficial.
I do think that competition is WAY overtaught and overused in the public school system, and I work hard to help my daughter un-learn it. She doesn't need a medal because she read 20 minutes a day for 100 days, that's ridiculous. She just needs to learn that reading is its own reward.
I myself went to an alternative school where we didn't get grades, and went on (for awhile) to an alternative college with the same policy. And I'm definitely competitive... and not about to change this. I embrace it, but at the same time, I use it wisely.
In architecture and physics, there are always tensions, compressions, aggravating forces. Not everything is smooth sailing in nature. Sometimes these tensions help us push beyond our comfort level to be better at something than we thought we could be... and this helps the collective evolve as well.
Why can't we just look at competition from a shareable POV? We should all want to be our best. We should all want to encourage others to compete with us! Why not? It's fun. I enjoy very much competing with others, and I can guarantee no one gets hurt. There is a difference (though subtle) between competing for the sake of one's ego, and competing for the sake of doing something great that exceeds all past standards.
"This city transcends not only borders and nations, but space and time. When I walk through its streets, I experience all my life—past, present, future—at once in my mind. Memories overlap and become real."
– Sarah Noack, from City of Dreams
Sarah Noack wrote on 06.17.10, 4:07pm:
That said, it is also possible to compete WHILE working on something together cooperatively. Each person should try to do their best, and yes... this does breed competition, no matter how hard we try to suppress it or call it by some other name.
"This city transcends not only borders and nations, but space and time. When I walk through its streets, I experience all my life—past, present, future—at once in my mind. Memories overlap and become real."
– Sarah Noack, from City of Dreams
Anonymous wrote on 07.20.10, 5:58pm:
I absolutely love this article. Even if you don't believe in going all the way with this theory and giving away your checkerboards and chess games, I think this gives us something we really need to think about as a country. We need some healthy and cooperative alternatives to the constant onslaught of team sports, school awards/ rewards and business competition (that is leading more and more companies overseas and sinking our country) that we've experienced in this country. Amen!
John Andersen wrote on 10.10.10, 4:21am:
I think you missed the point entirely.
Sure, competition does and will continue to exist.
But it doesn't need to be the dominant force in the lives of young children nor in the home setting.
Rather, it can be a game people play outside that realm when they have to, a game they intentionally don't internalize.
John Andersen wrote on 10.10.10, 4:24am:
My response is to the comment by Aaron.
I fully agree with Abby's article.
James Shubbles wrote on 12.09.10, 2:04pm:
Somehow I learn to become non-competitive at a very young age and have always hated competition and avoid participating in it. I thrive on totally free spirited stuff and things I develop completely on my own. Competition killed my self esteem when in my teens. So even though completing college about 30 years ago I have only worked at minimum wage crap jobs my whole life - over a 100 to date - work that causes me the least competitive stress. I prefer to start a business, write books, travel, learn the stock market, etc. to support myself than face dealing with others at a workplace. Unfortunately I still have to work and face doing stuff that I am WAY overqualified for year after year - driving trucks, food service, assembly, phone work, custodial, low level retail positions, etc. I have no desire to "move up" and compete and much prefer to work alone where I don't have to measure my performance against anyone else.
Drew wrote on 06.29.11, 3:01pm:
Somehow 'competition' has been mis-characterized here. What you are describing is bullying, mean-spirited actions, and other negative activity. Competition is the basis for life according to a guy, not as famous as this Kohn person, named Darwin.
Its in your DNA. Embrace it. As long as all combatants are willing participants and agree on the rules, competition, and all the camaraderie and drama that ensue will fuel the fire in the bellies of future competitors.
Well, I was going to say that an article I read on another website before coming here regarding how aliens might have been the force behind the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was the dumbest thing I've read all day...
Was going to.. Now this.
Competition is what makes things happen. Might as well title this one "How to make your kids brain dead morons" Sheesh.
Life is about competition. It's how you deal with winning and losing, not the competition itself, that matters. Competitiveness brings about strength and character. Both the winning and the losing sides.
Of course, those who've had their cushy lives handed to them can't figure that out, I guess.