Many great achievements only occur because it is spurred by competition. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo had a rivalry during their time period which only made them try harder to make their artwork greater than the other. Without this rivalry, the Mona Lisa or the statue of David may never have been created. "At its essence, humanity is a social and competitive enterprise" (Shenk 146). People are constantly comparing information, and are competing for recognition for their work. In Greece, "Competition...was central to that culture, where rivalries were encouraged not only in sports but also in oratory, drama, music, and politics" (Shenk 147). Many people believed that the Greeks made their education system based on competition in order for people to achieve greater success.
Do you think competition leads to greater success? Or do you think people can achieve this level of success without competition? Is the education system today too soft? If so, does this prevent society from advancing? Do you think competition has affected evolution and the way humans have adapted and grown? How so?
Anisha Ghosh (anishaghosh16@gmail.com)
Although having a vicious mind and trying to destroy other person is not good, having a friendly competition like Da Vinci and Michelangelo will lead to greater success. With this friendly competition, people will tend to strive to do better than their peers in order to achieve their goals. An example of this in comparison to animals is the concept of interspecific competition and the competitive exclusion. Although "interspecific competition is a negative/negative interaction between different species," this is only because in order to achieve one's goals, animals must kill each other (Campbell 1199). As warned, if it is a friendly competition, there will be no competitive exclusion and the competitors will access the greater success.
ReplyDeleteA human example of the issue of competition is related to education. Our education system today in America is too soft. Some people stereotype, complain, and even mock Asians for doing well in math and science and how they all become either engineers or doctors. I don't disagree. That is a major generalization in the United States and this is only happening because the education system of America is too soft while in other Asian countries, they are not. The American education was tried to fix since the history, "Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which for the first time directed substantial national funding to schools attended by these children. (George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind was technically a tweak to Johnson’s law, and Barack Obama is incorporating his education-reform ideas into another tweak.)" (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/09/27/100927taco_talk_lemann#ixzz1rd4inVpF). However, no one was able to fix the gap between races in education and catch up to other countries with greater education. Fortunately, we do have a variety of people and the United States and the country itself has a lot of population of people. This is why our country was able to advance up to now, but without competition and reinforcement of competition from the government, it would not catch up some countries in terms of education.
I do think that competition has affected evolution and the way humans have adapted and grown. From experience, I have experienced what a very competitive competition feels like when I was living in South Korea. One thing I have noticed is the amount of sleep/rest a person needs to be satisfactory. Over the years, humans have adapted to sleep less because of competition. During the time of cavemen, people slept during the night/evening because there was no light out. However, after the discovery of fire, people became to be more active in order to search for their food and have competition to find more food than your "neighbors." Ecologically, animals in the same and different species have gone through evolution through the inter and intraspecific competition (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6815945).
-Sally Park
sypark1029@gmail.com
DeleteI whole-heartedly believe that competition leads to greater success. Though, there is a fine line between a malicious vendetta and friendly competition. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo, for example, shared a mutual friendly competitive spirit that brought out the best in each of the great artists. Although, there are also examples where two individuals are so truly focused on the other failing that they loose sight of their own success.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States, the education system could be looked at as both too soft and increasingly competitive. It’s too soft in the sense that almost anyone can receive a college education regardless of their wealth or performance in high school. There will be some university, or community college, where the student will be accepted to continue his or her studies to pursue his or her career goals. On the other hand, the education system in the United States is also considerably competitive. For example, those who excelled in high school and are applying to college enter the pool of thousands of applicants every year who strive to be Ivy League college students. Though, many of these students are disheartened by their failure at achieving their dream college.
In a way, the education system of the United States being too soft could certainly prevent society from advancing. From previous experience of studying in southern India, I have noticed the differences in rigor and intensity of the two education systems. In India, competition is greatly prevalent throughout all ages of school starting as early as first grade. From what I’ve come to notice in the United States, competition only starts intensifying around eighth grade or high school. Because of this, India’s success in economic growth and securing of jobs all around the world has demonstrated that increased competition during school years is overall beneficial for the advancement of society.
Competition has certainly affected evolution. Charles Darwin’s famous theory of “survival of the fittest” comes to reason here because those who were better equipped genetically have been able to survive the competition among their own species and successfully reproduce and pass on their genes (Campbell 457). Competition, therefore, eliminated the less favorable gene structures and faulty mutations because of their lack of success. Because of this, competition has contributed to the success of many species.
-Sachin Vasikaran (sachinvasikaran@gmail.com)