In a message dated 98-06-02 11:21:41 EDT, BCompton@dws.net writes:
> This raises some very interesting questions. Why is competition "part of
> human nature"? Is it a survival instinct? Or is it a learned behavior? If
> the first, then why would our biological make up include an instinct to
> compete? And if it is the latter, why would we learn to compete so well
> that it became part of human nature?
Ben, You raise excellent questions.
We are born on a planet in motion and have basic feelings including
anxiety, isolation, and inferiority and the human organism responds, in a
natual biological manner, with compensatory activity (in the form of work,
relations and self development) as we strive to overcome these perceived
deficits from birth to death. If there is scarcity of resources allowing
for this compensation, there will be competition, in addition to normal
striving.
> Another set of questions that come to mind are: Why is purusing ones own
> self-interest at odds with collaboration?
I used the term "radical" self-interest to denote the discouraging and
self- defeating quality of intense self-interest at the expense of
community. It is in our true self-interest to connect, cooperate, and
contribute toward useful social goals, where intense self-elevated
self-interest in the form of striving for individualistic superiority,
domination, and the vanity of withdrawal leads to intense discouragement
and detachment. In short, enlightened self-interest means we pursue goals
related to self-development toward significance, belonging with the group,
and useful contribution to a greater whole.
>I think of it this way: I will
> cooperate, collaborate, and work with those I can trust. The only way I
> know who I can and cannot trust is to first compete with them so I can
> objectively measure their skill, reliability, and performance. I certainly
> would not want to get into a cooperative arrangement with someone who
> would slow me down, impair the quality of my work, or consume extra
> resources because they're not reliable. To that extent I am in favor of
> pursuing my own self-interest. Besides if I don't persue my own
> self-interest who will?
Another way to handle this would be to trust first, if only to discover
that the one you trusted is striving for individualistic superiority over
you, in which case, you have the power to make a different arrangement
with this person, if you are prepared with sufficient self-development to
avoid self- defeating dependency. If, instead, this person welcomes your
trust, the two of you can quickly build a sense of connection, cooperation
and mutual contribution without "testing" the sincereity of your
relationship. If you "compete" first, you may not ever get on the
positive track with this person. (Of course, I may be speaking for
myself, here, as I know how I'd respond to you.) We each must take
responsibity for the pursuit of a constructive self- interest.
> I'm coming close to reaching the conclusion that competition usually
> precedes any significant and meaningful cooperation. It allows us to make
> judgments about people that help us decide who we will or will not
> cooperate with.
I would not agree with this. As an alternative, I would suggest that
each can connect first to himself or herself in some authentic way, that
each can be expressive of this individual uniqueness, and that each could
listen deeply to the other. As this will provide a large number of
conflicts (given the uniqueness of each), the next challenge would be
cooperation, mutual cooperation as equals coupled with mutual respect as
equals. Such collaboration now leads to constructive work contribution.
When you influence a whole bunch of people to do this, you create
synergies of excellent that are hard to describe. When people I teach in
organizations try this, they like it.
Warm regards, David
David L. Hanson, Ph.D.
Consulting Psychologist
Charlotte, NC
GEMA-Lead 360 creator
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>