Competitors vs Cooperators

[Marvin the Martian]

In the book by the other Micheal Lewis, he presents the idea there are two types of people, One group are the competitors, people who see life as a competition against everyone else. They like competition, they thrive in competition. They believe competition is what moves not just them forward, but society. There are winners and losers and it is better to be a winner. For the rest of the discussion, I will refer to them as Republicans.

The other group are the cooperators. This group wants to work together to be their best, to move society forward. This is the group that wants participation trophies, winning isn't as important as trying and doing one's best. We'll call them Democrats.

The concept isn't too new. An old sci-fi series Babylon 5 had groups called Shadows and Vorlons that were pretty much the same concept. And of course, it goes back much farther than that, I just wanted to get a plug-in for one of my favorite sci-fi shows.

The truth is, we need competition and we need cooperation. Both sides can point to human progress and say "this wouldn't have happened but for us" but the truth is, those events wouldn't have happened without both. Take the moon landing, the competition with Vlad's parents drove the US. At the same point, there were a lot of people toiling anonymously behind the scenes to make it work (Katherine Johnson never expected to become famous, or rich, for her efforts).

Below is a site that lists party identity for all sorts of jobs. For example, programmers and cooks skew D. Police and roofer skew R. So without Dems, Rs would be hungry without computers, and Ds would be victimized by lawlessness with rain pouring in.

Democratic Vs. Republican Jobs: Is Your Job Red Or Blue? - Zippia

As much as HR might wish it wasn’t so, politics are part of the workplace. From pleasant enough water cooler talk to heated discussions, nearly half of Americans talk politics at work. However, depending on your job, what that conversation sounds like might vary. It could be pretty liberal...

www.zippia.com

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

In the book by the other Micheal Lewis, he presents the idea there are two types of people, One group are the competitors, people who see life as a competition against everyone else. They like competition, they thrive in competition. They believe competition is what moves not just them forward, but society. There are winners and losers and it is better to be a winner. For the rest of the discussion, I will refer to them as Republicans.

The other group are the cooperators. This group wants to work together to be their best, to move society forward. This is the group that wants participation trophies, winning isn't as important as trying and doing one's best. We'll call them Democrats.

The concept isn't too new. An old sci-fi series Babylon 5 had groups called Shadows and Vorlons that were pretty much the same concept. And of course, it goes back much farther than that, I just wanted to get a plug-in for one of my favorite sci-fi shows.

The truth is, we need competition and we need cooperation. Both sides can point to human progress and say "this wouldn't have happened but for us" but the truth is, those events wouldn't have happened without both. Take the moon landing, the competition with Vlad's parents drove the US. At the same point, there were a lot of people toiling anonymously behind the scenes to make it work (Katherine Johnson never expected to become famous, or rich, for her efforts).

Below is a site that lists party identity for all sorts of jobs. For example, programmers and cooks skew D. Police and roofer skew R. So without Dems, Rs would be hungry without computers, and Ds would be victimized by lawlessness with rain pouring in.

Democratic Vs. Republican Jobs: Is Your Job Red Or Blue? - Zippia

As much as HR might wish it wasn’t so, politics are part of the workplace. From pleasant enough water cooler talk to heated discussions, nearly half of Americans talk politics at work. However, depending on your job, what that conversation sounds like might vary. It could be pretty liberal...

www.zippia.com

I think that general stereotype is applied to men (competitors) and women (cooperators) much more usefully.
Although, even with them I think it is a gross oversimplification. Men are extremely cooperative in certain settings and women are extremely competitive in some, even within their stereotypes.

Using that label for Republicans vs. Democrats doesn't seem to hold any water on a personal level, but might on a policy level.

 

[IUCrazy2]

In the book by the other Micheal Lewis, he presents the idea there are two types of people, One group are the competitors, people who see life as a competition against everyone else. They like competition, they thrive in competition. They believe competition is what moves not just them forward, but society. There are winners and losers and it is better to be a winner. For the rest of the discussion, I will refer to them as Republicans.

The other group are the cooperators. This group wants to work together to be their best, to move society forward. This is the group that wants participation trophies, winning isn't as important as trying and doing one's best. We'll call them Democrats.

The concept isn't too new. An old sci-fi series Babylon 5 had groups called Shadows and Vorlons that were pretty much the same concept. And of course, it goes back much farther than that, I just wanted to get a plug-in for one of my favorite sci-fi shows.

The truth is, we need competition and we need cooperation. Both sides can point to human progress and say "this wouldn't have happened but for us" but the truth is, those events wouldn't have happened without both. Take the moon landing, the competition with Vlad's parents drove the US. At the same point, there were a lot of people toiling anonymously behind the scenes to make it work (Katherine Johnson never expected to become famous, or rich, for her efforts).

Below is a site that lists party identity for all sorts of jobs. For example, programmers and cooks skew D. Police and roofer skew R. So without Dems, Rs would be hungry without computers, and Ds would be victimized by lawlessness with rain pouring in.

Democratic Vs. Republican Jobs: Is Your Job Red Or Blue? - Zippia

As much as HR might wish it wasn’t so, politics are part of the workplace. From pleasant enough water cooler talk to heated discussions, nearly half of Americans talk politics at work. However, depending on your job, what that conversation sounds like might vary. It could be pretty liberal...

www.zippia.com

Pretty flimsy methodology.

 

[Univee2]

In the book by the other Micheal Lewis, he presents the idea there are two types of people, One group are the competitors, people who see life as a competition against everyone else. They like competition, they thrive in competition. They believe competition is what moves not just them forward, but society. There are winners and losers and it is better to be a winner. For the rest of the discussion, I will refer to them as Republicans.

The other group are the cooperators. This group wants to work together to be their best, to move society forward. This is the group that wants participation trophies, winning isn't as important as trying and doing one's best. We'll call them Democrats.

The concept isn't too new. An old sci-fi series Babylon 5 had groups called Shadows and Vorlons that were pretty much the same concept. And of course, it goes back much farther than that, I just wanted to get a plug-in for one of my favorite sci-fi shows.

The truth is, we need competition and we need cooperation. Both sides can point to human progress and say "this wouldn't have happened but for us" but the truth is, those events wouldn't have happened without both. Take the moon landing, the competition with Vlad's parents drove the US. At the same point, there were a lot of people toiling anonymously behind the scenes to make it work (Katherine Johnson never expected to become famous, or rich, for her efforts).

Below is a site that lists party identity for all sorts of jobs. For example, programmers and cooks skew D. Police and roofer skew R. So without Dems, Rs would be hungry without computers, and Ds would be victimized by lawlessness with rain pouring in.

Democratic Vs. Republican Jobs: Is Your Job Red Or Blue? - Zippia

As much as HR might wish it wasn’t so, politics are part of the workplace. From pleasant enough water cooler talk to heated discussions, nearly half of Americans talk politics at work. However, depending on your job, what that conversation sounds like might vary. It could be pretty liberal...

www.zippia.com

There are two types of people in this world.

Those who can count and those who can’t.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

There are two types of people in this world.

Those who can count and those who can’t.

I thought that it was:

There are three types of people in this world.

Those who can count and those who can't.

 

[Univee2]

I thought that it was:

There are three types of people in this world.

Those who can count and those who can't.

You’re right. In my defense, I was distracted by the painters my bride has working nearby.

Fining myself $10.00. Kangaroo Court is unforgiving when one blows a joke. 4/3rds of the Court agrees.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think that general stereotype is applied to men (competitors) and women (cooperators) much more usefully.
Although, even with them I think it is a gross oversimplification. Men are extremely cooperative in certain settings and women are extremely competitive in some, even within their stereotypes.

Using that label for Republicans vs. Democrats doesn't seem to hold any water on a personal level, but might on a policy level.

Using policy, look at debates on social services. You don't see a "we are too soft" vs "we need to do more" argument? Isn't that competition vs cooperation? I think we see a similar argument with insurance. Isn't that the basis for Medicare for All, cooperation? Isn't the counter that "I can do better for me without a program like that, and I value that more than what helps everyone else"? ie, competition?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Using policy, look at debates on social services. You don't see a "we are too soft" vs "we need to do more" argument? Isn't that competition vs cooperation? I think we see a similar argument with insurance. Isn't that the basis for Medicare for All, cooperation? Isn't the counter that "I can do better for me without a program like that, and I value that more than what helps everyone else"? ie, competition?

I can see some similarities, but it's really vague.

I think of the govt. vs. privatization thing more as an argument over efficacy of the two and the morality of the two. Anti-govt program people typically argue that private parties/markets do it better (yes, usually because competition is a great incentive--but notice that isn't arguing for competition for competition's sake)(see Hayek) and that it is immoral to force Person A to pay for Person B (see Nozick).

I'd also add an irony: to have a democracy and an economic system that foregoes regulation or nationwide insurance systems requires cooperation, too.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I can see some similarities, but it's really vague.

I think of the govt. vs. privatization thing more as an argument over efficacy of the two and the morality of the two. Anti-govt program people typically argue that private parties/markets do it better (yes, usually because competition is a great incentive--but notice that isn't arguing for competition for competition's sake)(see Hayek) and that it is immoral to force Person A to pay for Person B (see Nozick).

I'd also add an irony: to have a democracy and an economic system that foregoes regulation or nationwide insurance systems requires cooperation, too.

I agree it is vague, I was thinking about it after I saw an old friend's facebook post making fun of participation trophies and Kamala (I assume that was in her locker room talk I never saw?). I was thinking "why do particpation trophies engender so much anger?". So I recalled that part in Lewis' book where he referred to Berkeley as being full of "cooperation people".

If this isn't at least somewhat there, why do participation trophies engender hatred?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I agree it is vague, I was thinking about it after I saw an old friend's facebook post making fun of participation trophies and Kamala (I assume that was in her locker room talk I never saw?). I was thinking "why do particpation trophies engender so much anger?". So I recalled that part in Lewis' book where he referred to Berkeley as being full of "cooperation people".

If this isn't at least somewhat there, why do participation trophies engender hatred?

Contrary to the competitive nature we value and hope to inculcate in our kids. It’s that spirit that allows us to accomplish more - in whatever we pursue.

What we don’t realize and appreciate and teach is how to thwart the damaging pull of our peckers. That can ruin decades of progress

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I agree it is vague, I was thinking about it after I saw an old friend's facebook post making fun of participation trophies and Kamala (I assume that was in her locker room talk I never saw?). I was thinking "why do particpation trophies engender so much anger?". So I recalled that part in Lewis' book where he referred to Berkeley as being full of "cooperation people".

If this isn't at least somewhat there, why do participation trophies engender hatred?

I think it's because people think they are anti-meritocratic. And they are, I guess, to the extent they don't promote merit via exclusivity of the trophies.

I come at it a different way. I think merit and competition (which don't have to be synonymous) are fine, but much like what is taught to kids or book in libraries, there is a certain age appropriateness that needs to be considered. To me, crushing a kid's interest in sport or endeavor at a young age is both heartbreaking and unnecessary. I also think it is against the interests of the particular endeavor's overall success because it limits the number of people engaged.

I'd also note that there is plenty of competition within the cooperative set--they just compete on different issues (or ladders, as I'm fond of referring to it as). Many in that camp compete on the most-cooperative and most-virtuous ladder--that's why they love to use social media to promote themselves on those scores.

 

[hoot1]

Competitors in a given industry strive to perform better than their competitors while at the same time joining together to obtain common benefits from governments at all levels.

As to individuals, have to think we are both competitive and cooperative depending on the situation. However, the degree and natural tendency to be either competitive or cooperative varies from person to person.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

What we don’t realize and appreciate and teach is how to thwart the damaging pull of our peckers. That can ruin decades of progress

I've solved that and am working on a parenting book that all fathers should read.

With my son, I teach him that every time he feels that pull and wants to act like a goofball to get a girl's attention or do something stupid, he should hit himself in the pecker. Hard. Self-Pavlovian Conditioning is probably the technical term. My popularized term will be Pecker Punching. I'm raising a WARRIOR.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I've solved that and am working on a parenting book that all fathers should read.

With my son, I teach him that every time he feels that pull and wants to act like a goofball to get a girl's attention or do something stupid, he should hit himself in the pecker. Hard. Self-Pavlovian Conditioning is probably the technical term. My popularized term will be Pecker Punching. I'm raising a WARRIOR.

Yes!!!!!!! This is gold!!!!! And I’m only half kidding. There’s so much we miss. We are maniacs about college and career but do little marital advice, financial education, life skills.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Yes!!!!!!! This is gold!!!!! And I’m only half kidding. There’s so much we miss. We are maniacs about college and career but do little marital advice, financial education, life skills.

Can you imagine the political outcry if public schools started teaching marital advice? Can you imagine what that advice would look like from the people portrayed on Libs of TikTok?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think it's because people think they are anti-meritocratic. And they are, I guess, to the extent they don't promote merit via exclusivity of the trophies.

I come at it a different way. I think merit and competition (which don't have to be synonymous) are fine, but much like what is taught to kids or book in libraries, there is a certain age appropriateness that needs to be considered. To me, crushing a kid's interest in sport or endeavor at a young age is both heartbreaking and unnecessary. I also think it is against the interests of the particular endeavor's overall success because it limits the number of people engaged.

I'd also note that there is plenty of competition within the cooperative set--they just compete on different issues (or ladders, as I'm fond of referring to it as). Many in that camp compete on who can be the most cooperative and most virtuous ladder--that's why they love to use social media to promote themselves on those scores.

I wonder if it is anti-meritocracy as much, even in that softball league where scores are kept but not displayed, the kids know who is winning and who is losing.

I agree cooperation can become competitive, it is a sad state. We all get caught up in "I must win". Our egos are fragile things.

Your paragraph on age appropriate is accurate but I think there is nothing wrong with both concepts at all ages. Bowling built in a handicap to allow the occasional bowler to participate with the nightly. But in a country with people who do not exercise enough, "fun" rec leagues serve a purpose. If people go to basketball practice and a game each week, that is exercise. Shouldn't we want that?

I coached several years in a participation league. The training has a video about the number of kids who play a sport one year and never again. I don't recall it, but it is very very high. If we want kids to learn the discipline, get the exercise, learn teamwork, we need them in these activities. I would argue the value of sports isn't just for the 12-year-old.

I don't doubt some are too gung-ho on the non-competitive side just as I am sure we can picture a coach screaming at a 6 year old on the other end. But I think we need competitive leagues and more participation type.

 

[Univee2]

Can you imagine the political outcry if public schools started teaching marital advice? Can you imagine what that advice would look like from the people portrayed on Libs of TikTok?

Let the priests and nuns teach about marriage.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Can you imagine the political outcry if public schools started teaching marital advice? Can you imagine what that advice would look like from the people portrayed on Libs of TikTok?

Disaster. BUT I NEEDED IT AND STILL DO

Im weak

 

[mcmurtry66]

Let the priests and nuns teach about marriage.

Can’t give marital advice unless your pants have a zipper

 

[UncleMark]

There are two types of people in this world.

Those who can count and those who can’t.

Then there's those who count and those who don't.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Disaster. BUT I NEEDED IT AND STILL DO

Im weak

That's why you have the Water Cooler. You can pull on the advice of several here who have successful marriages and those who do not. Just stay away from the weirdos

 

[mcmurtry66]

That's why you have the Water Cooler. You can pull on the advice of several here who have successful marriages and those who do not. Just stay away from the weirdos

All it would take is one in person water cooler get together and membership would spiral. The successful marriages with this crew are largely I suspect a product of zero options. When Dr hoops puts one together I’ll listen

 

[Univee2]

All it would take is one in person water cooler get together and membership would spiral. The successful marriages with this crew are largely I suspect a product of zero options. When Dr hoops puts one together I’ll listen

??

”The successful marriages with this crew are largely I suspect a product of zero options.” ??

Where does that beauty come from?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Where does that beauty come from?

He's weak

 

[larsIU]

I've solved that and am working on a parenting book that all fathers should read.

With my son, I teach him that every time he feels that pull and wants to act like a goofball to get a girl's attention or do something stupid, he should hit himself in the pecker. Hard. Self-Pavlovian Conditioning is probably the technical term. My popularized term will be Pecker Punching. I'm raising a WARRIOR.

A light brushing would suffice, no? Be careful he might have hookers kicking him in the balls when he's 30.

don't ask how I know of such things.

 

[larsIU]

Can’t give marital advice unless your pants have a zipper

How would you know what's under the priest's frock?


Oh wait, Catholic school. I keed I keed.

 

[larsIU]

Let the priests and nuns teach about marriage.

I respect you didn't say "sex ed". I have no such restraint.

 

[TMFT]

I think competition > cooperation practically. I think cooperation > competition philosophically.

Example 1:
To maximize net benefit, we should want an efficient allocation of labor where everyone gives their absolute best effort at what they are relatively best at. Everyone works hard, the labor force is more productive, there is more of everything for everybody. We all share equally in the bounty. That's pure communism. It works at the VERY small level where mutual survival is dependent on it. When the group gets larger than, say, a tribe, then it goes to hell because of the free-rider problem. So I think too much cooperation focus will fail because people will fail.

Secondary thought:
Competition and Cooperation don't have to be mutually exclusive because there is some overlap. For example, two athletes vying for the starting spot push each other to both get better. It's competitive but, so long as they aren't tearing the other down, they're both making the other, and thus the team, better too. So in a sense, they're competing for a cooperative goal. In my real life, I used to work some backbreaking labor jobs in my salad days (well, salad or slim jims, Marlboro, & Busch Light, whatevs). A bunch of college age guys competing for the fun of it to carry more, work faster, work harder, work longer, etc. At the end of the day, however, if everyone busted their butts to the best of their ability, we got done faster and had more time to enjoy being 22, single, & on the road.

Finally:
As much as people like to create sharp dichotomies, it's not that simple. We haven't been a free market system since the beginning, for example. There has always been a degree of government involvement. What would pass as conservatism today would have been socialism in the days of Marx. Similarly, just as we could never get by in a pure cooperation system because of free riders, we'd never get by in a pure competition/individualist society today, and the country would be worse for it. We'd spend all of our time guarding our homes from thieves because we wouldn't have any social compact to fall back on to at least hope our neighbors aren't robbing us blind while we're at the mine 70 hours a week for $1/day.

 

[dr.jb]

How would you know what's under the priest's frock?


Oh wait, Catholic school. I keed I keed.

and now time for a joke......


A housewife takes a lover during the day, while her husband is at work,
not aware that her 9 year old son was hiding in the closet.
Her husband came home unexpectedly, so she hid her lover in the closet.
The boy now has company....

Boy: "Dark in here."
Man: "Yes it is."
Boy: "I have a baseball."
Man: "That's nice."
Boy: "Want to buy it?"
Man: "No, thanks."
Boy: "My dad's outside."
Man: "OK, how much?"
Boy: "$250."

In the next few weeks, it happens again that the boy and the mom's lover are in the closet together.

Boy: "Dark in here."
Man: "Yes, it is."
Boy: "I have a baseball glove."
Man: "That's nice."
Boy: "Want to buy it?"
Man: "No, thanks."
Boy: "I'll tell."
Man: "How much?"
Boy: "$750."
Man: "Fine."


A few days later, the father says to the boy, "Grab your glove. Let's go outside and toss the baseball!"
The boy says, "I can't. I sold them."
The father asks, "How much did you sell them for?"
The son says, "$1,000."

The father says, "That's terrible to over-charge your friends like that. That is way more than those two things cost. I'm going to take you to church and make you confess."

They go to church and the father alerts the priest and makes the little boy sit in the confession booth and closes the door.

The boy says, "Dark in here."
And the priest says, "Oh no, don't start that shit again."

 

[Bowlmania]

Can’t give marital advice unless your pants have a zipper

Here's my advice. You've got two ex-wives. Don't make it three. Stay single.

 

[TomEric4756]

In the book by the other Micheal Lewis, he presents the idea there are two types of people, One group are the competitors, people who see life as a competition against everyone else. They like competition, they thrive in competition. They believe competition is what moves not just them forward, but society. There are winners and losers and it is better to be a winner. For the rest of the discussion, I will refer to them as Republicans.

The other group are the cooperators. This group wants to work together to be their best, to move society forward. This is the group that wants participation trophies, winning isn't as important as trying and doing one's best. We'll call them Democrats.

The concept isn't too new. An old sci-fi series Babylon 5 had groups called Shadows and Vorlons that were pretty much the same concept. And of course, it goes back much farther than that, I just wanted to get a plug-in for one of my favorite sci-fi shows.

The truth is, we need competition and we need cooperation. Both sides can point to human progress and say "this wouldn't have happened but for us" but the truth is, those events wouldn't have happened without both. Take the moon landing, the competition with Vlad's parents drove the US. At the same point, there were a lot of people toiling anonymously behind the scenes to make it work (Katherine Johnson never expected to become famous, or rich, for her efforts).

Below is a site that lists party identity for all sorts of jobs. For example, programmers and cooks skew D. Police and roofer skew R. So without Dems, Rs would be hungry without computers, and Ds would be victimized by lawlessness with rain pouring in.

Democratic Vs. Republican Jobs: Is Your Job Red Or Blue? - Zippia

As much as HR might wish it wasn’t so, politics are part of the workplace. From pleasant enough water cooler talk to heated discussions, nearly half of Americans talk politics at work. However, depending on your job, what that conversation sounds like might vary. It could be pretty liberal...

www.zippia.com

Nice. Loved Babylon 5 too.

 

[Sope Creek]

In the book by the other Micheal Lewis, he presents the idea there are two types of people, One group are the competitors, people who see life as a competition against everyone else. They like competition, they thrive in competition. They believe competition is what moves not just them forward, but society. There are winners and losers and it is better to be a winner. For the rest of the discussion, I will refer to them as Republicans.

The other group are the cooperators. This group wants to work together to be their best, to move society forward. This is the group that wants participation trophies, winning isn't as important as trying and doing one's best. We'll call them Democrats.

The concept isn't too new. An old sci-fi series Babylon 5 had groups called Shadows and Vorlons that were pretty much the same concept. And of course, it goes back much farther than that, I just wanted to get a plug-in for one of my favorite sci-fi shows.

The truth is, we need competition and we need cooperation. Both sides can point to human progress and say "this wouldn't have happened but for us" but the truth is, those events wouldn't have happened without both. Take the moon landing, the competition with Vlad's parents drove the US. At the same point, there were a lot of people toiling anonymously behind the scenes to make it work (Katherine Johnson never expected to become famous, or rich, for her efforts).

Below is a site that lists party identity for all sorts of jobs. For example, programmers and cooks skew D. Police and roofer skew R. So without Dems, Rs would be hungry without computers, and Ds would be victimized by lawlessness with rain pouring in.

Democratic Vs. Republican Jobs: Is Your Job Red Or Blue? - Zippia

As much as HR might wish it wasn’t so, politics are part of the workplace. From pleasant enough water cooler talk to heated discussions, nearly half of Americans talk politics at work. However, depending on your job, what that conversation sounds like might vary. It could be pretty liberal...

www.zippia.com

Interesting . . . not sure why, but that reminds me of this book:

Amazon product ASIN 0399590668

 

[Sope Creek]

Interesting . . . not sure why, but that reminds me of this book:

View embedded media

And then there's this . . . from PBS' Nature series:

Dogs That Changed The World ~ About | Nature | PBS

NATURE's two-part special Dogs That Changed the World tells the epic story of the wolf's evolution, how "man's best friend" changed human society and how

www.pbs.org

I guess it depends on how Darwin sees the "fittest". If "fittest", strongest, fastest, meanest, then the dog wouldn't exist . . . nor would humans.

 

[SqueakyClean]

A) First off, I watched enough Babylon 5 to know that if you ever called a Vorlon a Democrat, he would send a dreadnaught class warship to your tiny little planet and wipe it from the face of the galaxy.

B) This is an interesting discussion considering I just finished the first weekend tournament for my son's robot competition. The have this concept called "Coopertition". At the end of the day, yes, it is a competition to see who's robot can perform the best and score the most points, but everything up until that point is very cooperative. Teams are encouraged to share their design concepts online (what works, what didn't). Publish the code that you are using that made your robot work. Etc.

We had a limit switch failure on our robot in the second round and had somehow forgotten to bring a spare of that type. We put an announcement out over the pit PA requesting one from any other team that had one available and got 6 other teams bringing us a replacement within three minutes.

It's an interesting dynamic to see, everybody working to help other teams to get better, but the ultimate goal is still to be the best.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

And then there's this . . . from PBS' Nature series:

Dogs That Changed The World ~ About | Nature | PBS

NATURE's two-part special Dogs That Changed the World tells the epic story of the wolf's evolution, how "man's best friend" changed human society and how

www.pbs.org

I guess it depends on how Darwin sees the "fittest". If "fittest", strongest, fastest, meanest, then the dog wouldn't exist . . . nor would humans.

Fittest means most capable of being able to reproduce and survive long enough to reproduce.

 

[larsIU]

Fittest means most capable of being able to reproduce and survive long enough to reproduce.

I wonder that using dogs might be an error. For the last 20,000 years or so humans have had a outsized influence on the existence of dogs (and other domesticated animals).

The majority of dogs in teh world today exist b/c of their ancestors interactions (and cooperative abilities) with humans.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I wonder that using dogs might be an error. For the last 20,000 years or so humans have had a outsized influence on the existence of dogs (and other domesticated animals).

The majority of dogs in teh world today exist b/c of their ancestors interactions (and cooperative abilities) with humans.

You know why dogs are better than us: they don't wonder that. They just love.

 

[SqueakyClean]

I wonder that using dogs might be an error. For the last 20,000 years or so humans have had a outsized influence on the existence of dogs (and other domesticated animals).

The majority of dogs in teh world today exist b/c of their ancestors interactions (and cooperative abilities) with humans.

 

[TommyCracker]

Interesting . . . not sure why, but that reminds me of this book:

View embedded media

There was a 60 minutes piece on this a few months back (assuming this book is the theory that the physical strongest wolves/dogs weren't the ones who survived, it was the dogs that left the pack and made allies with humans. Technically you could still say that was natural selection though).

Edit: Found it

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

A) First off, I watched enough Babylon 5 to know that if you ever called a Vorlon a Democrat, he would send a dreadnaught class warship to your tiny little planet and wipe it from the face of the galaxy.

B) This is an interesting discussion considering I just finished the first weekend tournament for my son's robot competition. The have this concept called "Coopertition". At the end of the day, yes, it is a competition to see who's robot can perform the best and score the most points, but everything up until that point is very cooperative. Teams are encouraged to share their design concepts online (what works, what didn't). Publish the code that you are using that made your robot work. Etc.

We had a limit switch failure on our robot in the second round and had somehow forgotten to bring a spare of that type. We put an announcement out over the pit PA requesting one from any other team that had one available and got 6 other teams bringing us a replacement within three minutes.

It's an interesting dynamic to see, everybody working to help other teams to get better, but the ultimate goal is still to be the best.

Coopertition sounds like the ideal. That's cool.