Competition. Imposed by the environment or stored in our genotype?

in #story8 years ago (edited)

Biological life on this planet thrives on competition. Some species better adjust to a changing environment and voila dinosaurs are gone and mammals are on top of the situation on the planet. Smilodon was one of the most dangerous carnivores ruling the planet for 2.5 million years. Ten thousand years ago he was outcompeted by smaller carnivores and extinct. Then came people and the competition started with the new force on the new turn of the evolutionary spiral. Babylon civilization was replaced by Assyrian, then Persian, then Macedonian, then Roman and so on.

Eventually, people were able to extract competition in its relatively pure form from quarrels over the food supply, territory and rivalry over the opposite sex. That happen a while ago in ancient Greece and was called the Olympic games.

Those competitions established a set of rules that made a competition interesting. 

1.  All competitors must be willingly subject themselves to the risk of losing.  In another word, the gang of thugs that beats you up cannot claim that they did it in a spirit of a fair competition.

2.  A competition has to establish its subject.  In another word, if you put a swimmer and a wrestler to compete in swimming, the wrestler has to actually swim rather than wrestle a swimmer to the ground.  In the same way, if one competitor runs a marathon another one cannot beat him over 100 meters and consider himself a winner.

3.  Participants should be bounded by an age group. Even the most talented young boy will lose to an average adult athlete. The same goes for people of advanced age. That's the reason why even the greatest boxers lose fights in the end of their careers.

The animal in each of us urges us to compete over food, territory, and the attention of the opposite sex; the desire that in the age of the Informational revolution disguises itself in different forms. I wonder though whether in this day of age the desire to compete is imposed not only by the surrounding circumstances but sits in our genotype so deep that we have the urge to compete on the subconscious level just for the hell of it. It is that thought that compelled me to share my experience in this blog.

Currently, I live next to the warmest part of the US; in Hollywood, Florida.

The condominium complex where I reside is next to the ocean.

It also has 80 feet pool.

It is silly not to use this geographical location to the benefits of my health. Thus, I swim every day and try to do this twice a day. In the morning I do 20 laps or 530 yards and in the evening 46 laps or 1220 yards.

Now I am coming to the competition part.  I am a man of what you would call "the first youth." I would describe this time period as the late fifties. Though even in my young years I have never been a champion swimmer. More so, until recently, I didn't know how to breathe properly during the freestyle. I learned this only after instructions received from my son and first implemented them while swimming in the ocean. Thus, the purpose of my swim is rather health related – lowers my BP. In the evening, it takes me around 45 to 50 minutes to finish my exercise.

Once in a while (actually more often than once in a while), when I am roughly in the middle of my distance someone starts to compete with me.  Notice the challenge usually comes from a much younger person, somewhere between their teens and thirties.  Also, no one declares the challenge out loud.  Nothing like "let's see who is faster." No, the duel glove is thrown silently.  I guess this is done in anticipation of their possible loss, and thus the ability to save their face under the pretext of coincidental recreational swimming next to me.

There is also a difference in the distance. The competitors usually swim one pool length while I am swimming 46 so I am not in a position to give it my full speed because I still have many loops to go.  So basically, the imposed competition is hardly fair on all three above listed accounts. 
Yet, if they win, and usually they do, they come out from the pool holding their head high and their body language says "I came, I saw, I conquered."

Notice there is nothing in this competition that makes any survival sense.  We don't quarrel over food – each of us buys it separately in a supermarket. There is no territorial dispute – we live in separate units. Similarly, there is no lady who is ready to give her charming smile to the winner.  More so, I don't see how honorable for a young stud to beat someone who they perceive as an old man.

Thus, I am inclined to think that this spirit of competitiveness is triggered by our genotype.  Is there a psychologist out there who can help me unravel this mystery?

Sort:  

I'm not a psychologist, but am very interested in psychology and politics and am constantly contemplating questions like this one. So I think your story and question is very interesting.

What I believe to have discovered so far is what you yourself also already seem to allude to: Competition occurs both because of environmental factors and because of genetic predisposition.

The most commonly accepted reason (and also the most likely one) why bonobos are much more peaceful and are much more socially egalitarian compared the common chimpanzee is because of their constant access to and the availability of an abundance of nutritious vegitation in their natural habitats. Or in other words they don't know scarcity, while the chimps on the other side of the Congo River do.

This does not mean however that if we completely eradicate scarcity people will just stop competing from one day to another. Some social hierarchy even still exists between bonobos, but it's logical to assume that given enough time, the less scarcity, the greater the chance our drive to compete will begin to fade. But a dog which has been bred solely for the reason to fight other dogs will statistically be more likely to show agression and competitiveness even in an environment where it has no apparent reason to do so, because of its genetic makeup.

Considering that the systems we live in and take part of are for the most part far from egalitarian (unfortunately), and things like competitiveness and greed are encouraged from a young age (even if it's at the cost of someone else's wellbeing) and scarcity is being artificially maintained (so the most powerful among us can become even more powerful even though it means that the people who are less well off are going to be exploitend and are going to be the first to bare the burden and thus risk losing the little they have left), we remain like chicken in a henhouse: pecking each other to death for fear of the other chickens laying more eggs than we do - meaning that if we don't peck those other chickens to nuggets it will be probably be us who are the first to end up in the frying pan.

So yes we are breeding ourselves a dangerous species this way and should we ever be able to establish a world wide society devoid of scarcity and a system at least resembling egalitarianism at least somewhat, like with dogs, it would probably take a couple of generations before our genes begin to adapt and people feel less of an urge to beat "elderly" people swimming laps in the swimming pool. Even if those genes would still exist, those genes would probably remain dormant in such a probably more ideal society.

I'm not against competitiveness however and think that it can also be a good thing. Even though I'm of the opinion that all the good things we achieved as a species, we've achieved mostly because of cooperation, this does not mean that I think that competition cannot also lead toward progress. It obviously can. What I think to be important though is that if we compete, we should compete consensually and in a manner of good sportsmanship and under no circumstance should my "win" ever be a threath to someones life or livelihood.*

But all this aside.. playing games can be fun. Even if I know I'm probably going to lose this does not mean that I might not try to challenge someone to a friendly match, and if all I intend is to see if I can swim faster than the guy who's swimming next to me, out of sheer curiosity, then there is hardly any malice involved. I might find reasons to admire that guy regardless of whether I win or lose. This is probably not exactly the same situation as you present it in the story above... but still... kids be kids? maybe?

*At least not in the society I imagine since in our current state of affairs regular people often don't have much of a choice if their desire is to survive.

Thank you for such a thoughtful and insightful response!

I put this story in my native language in https://golos.io/ico and got some interesting responses as well.

One of them stated that people who compete under these circumstances display nothing more than the dominance reflex governed by the limbic system. Basically, they say “I’ll show you who is in control of this pool.”
The other answer was that these responses are completely environmental and it’s our society (or those elements who control it) promote this stiff competition mentality. Then this opinion was rebuked stating that basically some natural predisposition still plays a big role in this.

It is my feeling that, as a result of historical evolution, homo sapiens do have some genetic predisposition to a competition (and as you pointed out some might have greater than others)
I also think that if the human society will make strides toward abundance and this will be enshrined in several generations, this type of behavior would subside.

In the meanwhile, I would still have to brace myself for those silent challenges from young bucks and keep my own limbic reflex under control, constantly reminding myself that my goal is blood pressure reduction. LOL

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.13
JST 0.029
BTC 57912.75
ETH 3070.69
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.33