JLA FORUMS Logo
Register Login
Search JLA Forums Memberlist Groups
Music & Videos Photo Galleries Chat
Links FAQ Info and Help

Popular Forums Premium Content Sections Cars & Trucks Classifieds: United States Canada
Computers & Technology Politics Religion
Bookmark topic Email topic to a friend Print this topic page
Subscribe to RSS feed for JLA FORUMS - Lutheran Subscribe to ATOM feed for JLA FORUMS - Lutheran

Go to page:  
1, 2, 3, ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Post new topic Reply to topic JLA FORUMS -> Religion -> Christianity -> Lutheran Share on Facebook Tweet - share a link with your Twitter followers Share on Google
Message Author
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 4:45 am
Post subject: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Future America Reply with quote





The benefits of cooperation

No Contest is a must-read book for anyone wishing to create, build and
invent. It shows how cooperation allows us to excel.

"Superbly researched, lucidly written, and delineated with admirable
clarity."
- Los Angeles Times Book Review

"Alfie Kohn marshals the evidence that competition is not the mainspring
of achievement in industry, the arts, education, or games."
- Dr. Benjamin Spock, pediatrician

"Well researched and sound, No Contest exposes erroneous assumptions
about the inevitability and value of competition. This book deserves our
attention."
- Carl Rogers, psychologist


Sample excerpts from No Contest;
pg. 149;
"... so that each of us knows what it is to work with others to paint a
room, prepare a report, cook a meal. To remember such experiences is to
know that cooperation encourages us to view our collaborators favorably;
it is to understand how cooperation teaches us, more broadly, the value
of relationship. Cooperation means the success of each participant is
linked to that of every other.
As of 1985, the Johnsons themselves had conducted thirty-seven studies
of interpersonal attraction under different learning arrangements.
Thirty-five of them clearly showed that cooperation promoted greater
attraction, while the results were mixed in the other two.61

pg. 45;
"Put plainly, one can set and reach goals - or prove to one's own and
others' satisfaction that one is competent - without ever competing.
'Success in achieving a goal does not depend upon winning over others
just as failing to achieve a goal does not mean losing to others.' A
moment's reflection reveals this as an undeniable truth. I can succeed
in knitting a scarf or writing a book without ever trying to make it
better than yours. Better yet, I can work with you - say, to prepare a
dinner or build a house. Many people take the absence of competition to
mean that one must be wandering aimlessly, without any goals. But
competing simply means that one is working toward a goal in such a way
as to prevent others from reaching their goals. This is one approach to
getting something done, but (happily) not the only one. Competition need
never enter the picture in order for skills to be mastered and
displayed, goals set and met."

pg. 55;
"The simplest way to understand why competition generally does not
promote excellence is to realize that trying to do well and trying to
beat others are two different things. Here sits a child in class, waving
his arm wildly to attract the teacher's attention, crying, "Oooh! Oooh!
Pick me!" The child is finally recognized but then seems befuddled. "Um,
what was that question again?" he finally asks. His mind is on beating
his classmates, not on the subject matter. The fact that there is a
difference between the two goes a long way toward explaining why
competition may actually make us less successful."

pg. 62;
"... is more likely to be solved quickly and imaginatively if scientists
(including scientists from different countries) pool their talents
rather than compete against one another.
Here it is not competition that is peculiarly unproductive; any kind
of individual work suffers from this drawback. But structural
competition has the practical effect of making people suspicious of and
hostile toward one another and thus of actively discouraging
cooperation. (The evidence on competition and affiliation will be
reviewed in detail in chapter 6.) This occurred to both Peter Blau and
Robert Helmreich as they tried to make sense of their respective
findings. Blau's competitive employment agency workers "in their
eagerness to make many placements . . . often ignored their relationship
with others"; their noncompetitive counterparts, meanwhile, enjoyed
more "social cohesion...," 70

pg. 154;
"But the sort of affirmation that is concerned with beating others, the
sort of camaraderie that develops from working to beat another group,
- or from simply claiming the superiority of one's own - has an
ugliness about it that I believe is intrinsically objectionable.
Camaraderie is desirable, all things being equal. But all things are not
equal when the feeling is derived from derogating an out-group. As to
the defense that it is all in fun, I am reminded of the person who
cruelly taunts someone and then remonstrates, "But I was only kidding!"

pg. 194;
"There are quite a few thinkers whose work is useful in beginning to
think about reducing structural competition. Terry Orlick offers
non-competitive games as a way of reconceptualizing recreation. "Why not
create and play games that make us more cooperative, honest and
considerate of others?" he asks. 18 David and Roger Johnson propose
noncompetitive alternatives in the classroom as a way of improving
education.

my.fcc..../~workg....on.html





competition cooperation works
Sponsored Link












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 8:02 am
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Joe Bruno Reply with quote



Future America wrote:

Quote:
The benefits of cooperation

No Contest is a must-read book for anyone wishing to create, build and
invent. It shows how cooperation allows us to excel.

"Superbly researched, lucidly written, and delineated with admirable
clarity."
- Los Angeles Times Book Review

"Alfie Kohn marshals the evidence that competition is not the mainspring
of achievement in industry, the arts, education, or games."
- Dr. Benjamin Spock, pediatrician

"Well researched and sound, No Contest exposes erroneous assumptions
about the inevitability and value of competition. This book deserves our
attention."
- Carl Rogers, psychologist


Sample excerpts from No Contest;
pg. 149;
"... so that each of us knows what it is to work with others to paint a
room, prepare a report, cook a meal. To remember such experiences is to
know that cooperation encourages us to view our collaborators favorably;
it is to understand how cooperation teaches us, more broadly, the value
of relationship. Cooperation means the success of each participant is
linked to that of every other.
As of 1985, the Johnsons themselves had conducted thirty-seven studies
of interpersonal attraction under different learning arrangements.
Thirty-five of them clearly showed that cooperation promoted greater
attraction, while the results were mixed in the other two.61

pg. 45;
"Put plainly, one can set and reach goals - or prove to one's own and
others' satisfaction that one is competent - without ever competing.
'Success in achieving a goal does not depend upon winning over others
just as failing to achieve a goal does not mean losing to others.' A
moment's reflection reveals this as an undeniable truth. I can succeed
in knitting a scarf or writing a book without ever trying to make it
better than yours. Better yet, I can work with you - say, to prepare a
dinner or build a house. Many people take the absence of competition to
mean that one must be wandering aimlessly, without any goals. But
competing simply means that one is working toward a goal in such a way
as to prevent others from reaching their goals. This is one approach to
getting something done, but (happily) not the only one. Competition need
never enter the picture in order for skills to be mastered and
displayed, goals set and met."

pg. 55;
"The simplest way to understand why competition generally does not
promote excellence is to realize that trying to do well and trying to
beat others are two different things. Here sits a child in class, waving
his arm wildly to attract the teacher's attention, crying, "Oooh! Oooh!
Pick me!" The child is finally recognized but then seems befuddled. "Um,
what was that question again?" he finally asks. His mind is on beating
his classmates, not on the subject matter. The fact that there is a
difference between the two goes a long way toward explaining why
competition may actually make us less successful."

pg. 62;
"... is more likely to be solved quickly and imaginatively if scientists
(including scientists from different countries) pool their talents
rather than compete against one another.
Here it is not competition that is peculiarly unproductive; any kind
of individual work suffers from this drawback. But structural
competition has the practical effect of making people suspicious of and
hostile toward one another and thus of actively discouraging
cooperation. (The evidence on competition and affiliation will be
reviewed in detail in chapter 6.) This occurred to both Peter Blau and
Robert Helmreich as they tried to make sense of their respective
findings. Blau's competitive employment agency workers "in their
eagerness to make many placements . . . often ignored their relationship
with others"; their noncompetitive counterparts, meanwhile, enjoyed
more "social cohesion...," 70

pg. 154;
"But the sort of affirmation that is concerned with beating others, the
sort of camaraderie that develops from working to beat another group,
- or from simply claiming the superiority of one's own - has an
ugliness about it that I believe is intrinsically objectionable.
Camaraderie is desirable, all things being equal. But all things are not
equal when the feeling is derived from derogating an out-group. As to
the defense that it is all in fun, I am reminded of the person who
cruelly taunts someone and then remonstrates, "But I was only kidding!"

pg. 194;
"There are quite a few thinkers whose work is useful in beginning to
think about reducing structural competition. Terry Orlick offers
non-competitive games as a way of reconceptualizing recreation. "Why not
create and play games that make us more cooperative, honest and
considerate of others?" he asks. 18 David and Roger Johnson propose
noncompetitive alternatives in the classroom as a way of improving
education.

my.fcc..../~workg....on.html



You have misunderstood what competition means in a free market economy.

Without competition in the marketplace, you would be paying more for
your goods and getting shoddy quality. Ask the people of the former
USSR. They had scarcities of consumer goods for years and the stuff
they bought was of poor quality.












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 8:49 am
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Anonymous Reply with quote



and to think people want univeral healthcare in this country.
that would be a disaster.




Joe Bruno wrote:

Quote:
Future America wrote:
The benefits of cooperation

No Contest is a must-read book for anyone wishing to create, build and
invent. It shows how cooperation allows us to excel.

"Superbly researched, lucidly written, and delineated with admirable
clarity."
- Los Angeles Times Book Review

"Alfie Kohn marshals the evidence that competition is not the mainspring
of achievement in industry, the arts, education, or games."
- Dr. Benjamin Spock, pediatrician

"Well researched and sound, No Contest exposes erroneous assumptions
about the inevitability and value of competition. This book deserves our
attention."
- Carl Rogers, psychologist


Sample excerpts from No Contest;
pg. 149;
"... so that each of us knows what it is to work with others to paint a
room, prepare a report, cook a meal. To remember such experiences is to
know that cooperation encourages us to view our collaborators favorably;
it is to understand how cooperation teaches us, more broadly, the value
of relationship. Cooperation means the success of each participant is
linked to that of every other.
As of 1985, the Johnsons themselves had conducted thirty-seven studies
of interpersonal attraction under different learning arrangements.
Thirty-five of them clearly showed that cooperation promoted greater
attraction, while the results were mixed in the other two.61

pg. 45;
"Put plainly, one can set and reach goals - or prove to one's own and
others' satisfaction that one is competent - without ever competing.
'Success in achieving a goal does not depend upon winning over others
just as failing to achieve a goal does not mean losing to others.' A
moment's reflection reveals this as an undeniable truth. I can succeed
in knitting a scarf or writing a book without ever trying to make it
better than yours. Better yet, I can work with you - say, to prepare a
dinner or build a house. Many people take the absence of competition to
mean that one must be wandering aimlessly, without any goals. But
competing simply means that one is working toward a goal in such a way
as to prevent others from reaching their goals. This is one approach to
getting something done, but (happily) not the only one. Competition need
never enter the picture in order for skills to be mastered and
displayed, goals set and met."

pg. 55;
"The simplest way to understand why competition generally does not
promote excellence is to realize that trying to do well and trying to
beat others are two different things. Here sits a child in class, waving
his arm wildly to attract the teacher's attention, crying, "Oooh! Oooh!
Pick me!" The child is finally recognized but then seems befuddled. "Um,
what was that question again?" he finally asks. His mind is on beating
his classmates, not on the subject matter. The fact that there is a
difference between the two goes a long way toward explaining why
competition may actually make us less successful."

pg. 62;
"... is more likely to be solved quickly and imaginatively if scientists
(including scientists from different countries) pool their talents
rather than compete against one another.
Here it is not competition that is peculiarly unproductive; any kind
of individual work suffers from this drawback. But structural
competition has the practical effect of making people suspicious of and
hostile toward one another and thus of actively discouraging
cooperation. (The evidence on competition and affiliation will be
reviewed in detail in chapter 6.) This occurred to both Peter Blau and
Robert Helmreich as they tried to make sense of their respective
findings. Blau's competitive employment agency workers "in their
eagerness to make many placements . . . often ignored their relationship
with others"; their noncompetitive counterparts, meanwhile, enjoyed
more "social cohesion...," 70

pg. 154;
"But the sort of affirmation that is concerned with beating others, the
sort of camaraderie that develops from working to beat another group,
- or from simply claiming the superiority of one's own - has an
ugliness about it that I believe is intrinsically objectionable.
Camaraderie is desirable, all things being equal. But all things are not
equal when the feeling is derived from derogating an out-group. As to
the defense that it is all in fun, I am reminded of the person who
cruelly taunts someone and then remonstrates, "But I was only kidding!"

pg. 194;
"There are quite a few thinkers whose work is useful in beginning to
think about reducing structural competition. Terry Orlick offers
non-competitive games as a way of reconceptualizing recreation. "Why not
create and play games that make us more cooperative, honest and
considerate of others?" he asks. 18 David and Roger Johnson propose
noncompetitive alternatives in the classroom as a way of improving
education.

my.fcc..../~workg....on.html


You have misunderstood what competition means in a free market economy.

Without competition in the marketplace, you would be paying more for
your goods and getting shoddy quality. Ask the people of the former
USSR. They had scarcities of consumer goods for years and the stuff
they bought was of poor quality.












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 9:37 am
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Glorfindel Reply with quote



darth_sidious70@yahoo.com wrote:


Quote:
and to think people want univeral healthcare in this country.
that would be a disaster.


Indeed. Why, some of those inferior people might actually survive!
What was Jesus THINKING when He healed just *anybody* -- and on the
Sabbath, too? <irony>
....












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 12:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Joe Bruno Reply with quote



darth_sidious70@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:
and to think people want univeral healthcare in this country.
that would be a disaster.



What has that got to do with economic competition?

Have you not heard of medicare? All working Americans pay for it,
whether they are eligilbe or not.. We also have state programs for the
poor, like Medicaid in California.
We don't have government run universal healthcare for one simple
reason-most Americans don't want it.



Quote:



Joe Bruno wrote:
Future America wrote:
The benefits of cooperation

No Contest is a must-read book for anyone wishing to create, build and
invent. It shows how cooperation allows us to excel.

"Superbly researched, lucidly written, and delineated with admirable
clarity."
- Los Angeles Times Book Review

"Alfie Kohn marshals the evidence that competition is not the mainspring
of achievement in industry, the arts, education, or games."
- Dr. Benjamin Spock, pediatrician

"Well researched and sound, No Contest exposes erroneous assumptions
about the inevitability and value of competition. This book deserves our
attention."
- Carl Rogers, psychologist


Sample excerpts from No Contest;
pg. 149;
"... so that each of us knows what it is to work with others to paint a
room, prepare a report, cook a meal. To remember such experiences is to
know that cooperation encourages us to view our collaborators favorably;
it is to understand how cooperation teaches us, more broadly, the value
of relationship. Cooperation means the success of each participant is
linked to that of every other.
As of 1985, the Johnsons themselves had conducted thirty-seven studies
of interpersonal attraction under different learning arrangements.
Thirty-five of them clearly showed that cooperation promoted greater
attraction, while the results were mixed in the other two.61

pg. 45;
"Put plainly, one can set and reach goals - or prove to one's own and
others' satisfaction that one is competent - without ever competing.
'Success in achieving a goal does not depend upon winning over others
just as failing to achieve a goal does not mean losing to others.' A
moment's reflection reveals this as an undeniable truth. I can succeed
in knitting a scarf or writing a book without ever trying to make it
better than yours. Better yet, I can work with you - say, to prepare a
dinner or build a house. Many people take the absence of competition to
mean that one must be wandering aimlessly, without any goals. But
competing simply means that one is working toward a goal in such a way
as to prevent others from reaching their goals. This is one approach to
getting something done, but (happily) not the only one. Competition need
never enter the picture in order for skills to be mastered and
displayed, goals set and met."

pg. 55;
"The simplest way to understand why competition generally does not
promote excellence is to realize that trying to do well and trying to
beat others are two different things. Here sits a child in class, waving
his arm wildly to attract the teacher's attention, crying, "Oooh! Oooh!
Pick me!" The child is finally recognized but then seems befuddled. "Um,
what was that question again?" he finally asks. His mind is on beating
his classmates, not on the subject matter. The fact that there is a
difference between the two goes a long way toward explaining why
competition may actually make us less successful."

pg. 62;
"... is more likely to be solved quickly and imaginatively if scientists
(including scientists from different countries) pool their talents
rather than compete against one another.
Here it is not competition that is peculiarly unproductive; any kind
of individual work suffers from this drawback. But structural
competition has the practical effect of making people suspicious of and
hostile toward one another and thus of actively discouraging
cooperation. (The evidence on competition and affiliation will be
reviewed in detail in chapter 6.) This occurred to both Peter Blau and
Robert Helmreich as they tried to make sense of their respective
findings. Blau's competitive employment agency workers "in their
eagerness to make many placements . . . often ignored their relationship
with others"; their noncompetitive counterparts, meanwhile, enjoyed
more "social cohesion...," 70

pg. 154;
"But the sort of affirmation that is concerned with beating others, the
sort of camaraderie that develops from working to beat another group,
- or from simply claiming the superiority of one's own - has an
ugliness about it that I believe is intrinsically objectionable.
Camaraderie is desirable, all things being equal. But all things are not
equal when the feeling is derived from derogating an out-group. As to
the defense that it is all in fun, I am reminded of the person who
cruelly taunts someone and then remonstrates, "But I was only kidding!"

pg. 194;
"There are quite a few thinkers whose work is useful in beginning to
think about reducing structural competition. Terry Orlick offers
non-competitive games as a way of reconceptualizing recreation. "Why not
create and play games that make us more cooperative, honest and
considerate of others?" he asks. 18 David and Roger Johnson propose
noncompetitive alternatives in the classroom as a way of improving
education.

my.fcc..../~workg....on.html


You have misunderstood what competition means in a free market economy.

Without competition in the marketplace, you would be paying more for
your goods and getting shoddy quality. Ask the people of the former
USSR. They had scarcities of consumer goods for years and the stuff
they bought was of poor quality.












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 1:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Anonymous Reply with quote



<<Medicaid in California>>


its called Medi-Cal.












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 1:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Joe Bruno Reply with quote



darth_sidiou...@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:
Medicaid in California


its called Medi-Cal.


There is also a program called "Medicaid".












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 1:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Joe Bruno Reply with quote



darth_sidiou...@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:
Medicaid in California


its called Medi-Cal.



www.armstrongfisc....ces.htm












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 2:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to Anonymous Reply with quote



How true! Big oil has been cooperating, not competing for decades, and
the result is....

....record profits, record gas prices.












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Back to top
Post Link Posted: Fri Mar 17 2006 7:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Why cooperation works better than competition
Reply to vernon Reply with quote



<njst-power@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1142621934.209648.188460@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Quote:
How true! Big oil has been cooperating, not competing for decades, and
the result is....

...record profits, record gas prices.


One year.

Your ignorance is showing.

Your ignorance of where most income is achieved is duly noted.

Wait. Gas prices are going MUCH higher as more and more ethanol / methanol
is used.

If you don't like it, go to France or Germany and tank up.

I know you don't have the mathematical capability but divide the total
profit from gasoline by the number of gallons of gasoline sold. How much
per gallon could they have saved you with zero profit?












Email post to a friendEmail Remove PostRemove Report post to the JLA FORUMS Admin TeamReport
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 15 Go to page:  
1, 2, 3, ... 13, 14, 15  Next
JLA FORUMS -> Religion -> Christianity -> Lutheran All times are GMT - 4 Hours


JLA FORUMS - One of the largest message boards on the web!

Privacy Statement
You are not permitted to use this website if you under the age of 18.
By using this website you affirm that you understand and agree to our Terms of Service.

This website is best viewed at 1024 x 768 or higher screen resolution
© 1998-2014 JLA FORUMS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2014 phpBB Group