

Ask HN: How to develop competitive spirit? - jhjhjhjhj

Ok. This may sound weird to many but let me tell you my story.
I am a proficient developer and entrepreneur. I always come with many big ideas. But, as soon as I realize that it will affect someone else badly directly or indirectly, I stop working on it. Whenever I think that if I win , someone else will lose, I stop participating in that competition.
I hate Amazon and Walmart, as they destroyed many local shops.  
I learnt quite a lot in robotics but gave it up when I realized that many people will lose jobs because of automation.
These ideas have got fixed in my mind and I can't remove them. I am not able to progress in the real world but I can't find any flaw in my ideas. I don't understand why people compete. 
Does any one of you feel the same? Did you ever have this thought? If yes, how did you overcome it? Or do we even need to overcome it?
======
b0ttler0cket
As a side note (because your way of thinking is very interesting), here's a
small thought exercise. I would love to know what you would do in this
situation. (This might further convince you that the way you think fails some
tests). I think taking the time to really understand this train of thinking is
important, as it will dictate many of your decisions in the future. :)

ActionA hurts 1 person. B,2 C,3 D,4

Which one do you chose? A or no choice? To compound the problem.

ActionA hurts 1 person you really like. B,2 ppl you kinda like; C,3 ppl you
are ambivalent towards; D,4 ppl you utterly dislike (each emotion containing
logical reasons, e.g. A is your girlfriend, D is a cruel warlord.)

Now your decision might change, might it not? This is how I demonstrate to you
why uncertainty destroys any chance you have of effectively making decisions.

So in all, I believe your way of thinking fails at 3 levels.

1\. You believe your actions always hurt someone, though not realizing that
because you're a capable and well-meaning person, your inaction may hurt many
many more people.

2\. You believe firmly (so firmly that you don't commit to anything you want
to do in life) that you are dealing with information when you are in fact
dealing only in pure, non-founded speculation. You have NO basis to believe
you are hurting people. You speculate. I would say you have information that
you are hurting people when you can tell me the names of who you're hurting.
This is a bad illusion to live under. It gives you the feeling that your
making an active decision to do something when all you're doing is absolutely
nothing except believing you've made an active decision. You set yourself a
devious little trap.

3\. You do not have enough information to use the system you are using. Even
if you had enough information (as demonstrated above) you would need
additional rules and ways to rank the impact of your actions and who they
impact, which you currently completely lack.

I know this is going to help you. Let it. If I was in your situation and
someone told me this, it would've helped me. :)

~~~
jhjhjhjhj
Thanks b0ttler0cket. Your comments definitely helped me. Though I am not 100%
convinced. I will give more thoughts to your comments.

~~~
soneca
Great comment by b0ttler0cket! He is completely right.

Sharing my point of view, I am also have no competitive spirit at all (and I
don't want to grow any also). My high school used to divide students in
classes according to our grades. I consciously chose no to study to the finals
in order to stay on the same class of my friends. I am a good soccer player,
but, unsurprisingly, I am always at the loser side of a game - _sport_ is a
field where competitive matters, not entrepreneurship.

As a founder myself, not being competitive certainly has implications, but
that doesn't give any reason to create a "fear paralysis". Sure, we both
doesn't have the right fit to create a copycat business. Create a local
Groupon where we would have to ferociously compete for markets. But what about
innovation? Blue ocean strategy? Non-profit startups? Social business?
Research? I may even say that creating a new social networking site don't
justify your fears (or are you actually afraid of being so successfull that
you will make all Facebook employees fired??).

See how many possibilities? I can't not say something, and I am only saying
this because I can completely relate to your spirit and I really have no
intention to offend here. But, to me, sounds one of two options: or you are
extremely short-sighted about what can you achieve or you are just
rationalizing all of this in order to justify your inaction, your fear of
getting out of your comfort zone.

On a final note, a misconception: Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Not at
all. Even Karl Marx, the biggest, most important, most inteligent, most
profound, most ferocious critic of capitalism says that capitalism imply in
poverty, that for some to get rich, some have to be poor. No, the capitalism
itself doesn't demand this. The way we practice capitalism today has this
consequence, but this is changing. Less poverty in the world is better for
rich people and rich countries. China growth allowed a better life for both
USA wealthy people and chinese poorest - there is no way a continual world
growth is possible without including Africa in world's economy. It is
perfectly possible to create a business where you create wealth for every
stakeholders and doesn't destroy wealth with some externality. *Marx's
criticism is more in the line that capitalism leads to individualism,
fetishism, human degradation(not through poverty), reification (thingification
of social relations).

------
codegeek
Competing is not only about killing or destroying someone (a business in your
context). It is also about encouraging the players to continuously improve and
challenge themselves. Yes it is true that whenever someone wins, someone else
loses. But instead of looking only at the loss, look at what new gains are
coming in ? You say you ate Amazon etc. because they destroyed many local
shops. How about the thousands of jobs they also created ? How about the value
they brought to consumers all over the world which the local shops wouldn't
have. Also it is not a zero sum game. There still are local shops in cities
around you. They still exist.

Look at the positives of anything. Stop worrying about negatives. I am sure
those local shops would have found something else to do and who knows, they
might even be doing better now.

~~~
jhjhjhjhj
"How about the thousands of jobs they also created ?" -> This was true in the
past with big corporations,huge number of jobs were also created. But, now a
days, even this is not true. Eg. Amazon Warehouse Automation, Automation in
industries, etc. People are losing their jobs. In developing countries, as
simple jobs are getting replaced by machines, many lower class are finding it
even difficult to survive. The big enterprises are doing much more harm than
the value they are creating. And yet I see people dreaming of making it big
just because of our greed. What is good about big?

~~~
codegeek
you need to think about this more. If at one end, some industries are getting
automated due to technological advancements, it is also creating a new set of
industry where you _need_ to hire. Sure if there aren't enough warehouse jobs,
people will find something they can fit in. Like I said, don't look at it as a
zero sum game.

~~~
soneca
Definetly you should think more about this. I live in Brazil, we are a
developing country, we are implementing a lot of automation - particularly in
our biggest business, agriculture - and our unemployment rate is one of the
lowest in the planet right now.

------
b0ttler0cket
Dear jhjhjhjhj,

1\. Not acting is hurting someone too.

You can look at this from a psychological standpoint. I've read the other
comments and I agree with some of them, especially mnicole's in which s/he
says "you're opening the door for another or making them step up their game."
You may be "hurting" someone, but you have the potential to help many more. So
from a philosophical point, you are solid. Just remember that breaking a
window to employ the window maker does not add to the system. It actually just
leaves you minus a window. If you don't commit to your ideas, you're breaking
the window.

2\. You don't have enough information. Uncertainty.

You can look at this also from a logical standpoint. What you're saying is you
are immobilized due to various reasons. These reasons, we call constraints.
You are in a situation saturated with so many constraints that you can
effectively do nothing. Start one thing, find bad implications, stop. Start
another, stop. This is a signature sign of a bad and failing system. You HAVE
to change the rules by default, assuming you want to develop a better system.

As such, forget this rule:

If I "affect someone else badly directly or indirectly, I stop working on it."

This to me is the equivalent of voodoo magic. You cannot quantify or in anyway
measure the extent of your negative impacts. This means you are in a system
rife with uncertainty. The special quality of uncertainty (as the 2002-2008 WS
financial engineers observed) is that no matter what metrics you use, it is
unquantifiable and that an overabundance denotes a system bound to fail. Your
system of decision is therefore one that fails. It is not grounded in reality,
but in uncertainty. You sound like a smart person ("proficient developer and
entrepreneur"). You must be able to see why this is true.

Do not make decisions based on uncertainty. There's literally nothing you can
do for these people you believe you might be hurting. Make decisions on
reality. Go for what you want. Develop your projects and feel liberated doing
so.

Now, having reconciled our philosophy with our logic, I hope you can find a
better peace of mind to continue onward. :)

------
mnicole
If you don't, someone else will, and they might be even less ethical than you
are. Additionally, like codegeek said, you may be shutting one person out, but
you're opening the door for another or making them step up their game. There's
also no reason to feel guilty because someone didn't do enough research into
their profession's outlook. I saw first-hand how co-workers struggled with
making the switch from desktop publishing to web; it was awful for them, but
it would have been worse for everyone if the web had never come along at all.
Many high schoolers are given aptitude tests that show the future growth of
the industries they showed potential in. These same tests are probably
available for free online at this point. Think less about the individual and
more about the bigger picture; the individual will get through it and the
opportunity to do something grand has much greater return for everyone.

Another way to look at it: a lot of people will work for companies they
morally or ethically despise, but the pay and other factors keep them around
until they've accumulated enough of this dirty money to go on to use it to do
better things. If you are concerned that your best ideas are disruptive to the
point of guilt, just remind yourself that you don't need to do it forever, and
if you'd feel better as a philanthropist, the bad can fund the good.

------
1123581321
You should look into companies like Gore and Mondragon. There are ways to
build great, competitive companies that create great jobs and ways of living
that didn't exist before.

------
mjdn
There is a correlation between testosterone levels and competitiveness.
Exercise will increase your testosterone levels and this may increase your
competitiveness

------
kohanz
Simple solution: work on medical robotics (e.g. minimally invasive surgery).
Nobody loses their job and your work affects people positively.

------
t0
Business is a ruthless game. There is limited market saturation. A few are on
the court, while a lot more are always on the bench.

I don't think it has to be this way, but it certainly shouldn't keep you out
of the game completely.

~~~
jhjhjhjhj
Most think it should not be this way. Then why can't we change it? How will
participating in the game help? I can't convince myself.

~~~
t0
You shouldn't do nothing because you might hurt someone's feelings. Chances
are they have no issue hurting yours. Necessary evil if you will.

I'd love to change it.. but it may not even be possible. Only a limited number
of businesses can exist in any one market. Some will do better work than
others. The ones doing the better work will remain and profit, while the
others will perish. How can that be done differently?

~~~
b0ttler0cket
I have to disagree.

I don't like to think of this as a necessary evil. Given the OP's philosophy,
I definitely don't think it's appropriate to describe what he should do as an
"evil."

It can be done differently. He's not questioning the fact that there's "only a
limited number of businesses [that] can exist in any one market." Jh
understands that the world is finite. What he doesn't understand is that this
concept of "hurting" someone is not real. It's not sports, where the aim is to
defeat the opponent (yes that is the aim of sports...I know what I'm talking
about there). This is business. If there's too much in one place, go somewhere
else. Jh's problem is that he can't go anywhere else. He's stuck in the middle
of nowhere because every decision is blocked by an internal rule he has
written.

There is no necessary "evil" here, there's just necessary. You have to abandon
your train of thought. :) That is, if you want the solution to your dilemma.
:)

~~~
bmelton
From the guidelines: "Please don't sign comments, especially with your url.
They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more
about you, they can click on it to see your profile."

Could you, pretty please, stop prefacing all your posts with your username? It
ends up appearing directly below your username, and is kind of distracting.

~~~
b0ttler0cket
Oops. Sorry. :)

------
capitalboom
And I'll bet if you were around thousands of years ago and invented fire you'd
have forseen guns and rockets and given up on fire....

------
logjam
I say no need to overcome your philosophy, and you can be highly successful
without the rather silly idea people have around the need for competition.

Cooperation, symbiosis, or whatever you want to call it, is a higher good than
competition.

~~~
lutusp
Logjam, I apologize for replying to your comment in another thread
(<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5501739>) in this unorthodox way, but
you replied to one of my comments in a recent thread and before I could reply
to yours, the originator of the thread killed it, which action prevented any
more correspondence and might have led you to believe I had no reply to your
remarks. But I do. Here's your comment followed by my reply:

>>...you're only adding to the perception that women _lie_ [emphasis added]
about sex crimes. _And they do_ [emphasis added]...20%-40%...are simply
false... blah blah

> Oh. My. _Lie_. Speaking of sleazy, do tell us more about your oddly worded
> little insinuation, when the article you linked goes on to say:

> "First, the category of 'false accusations' does not distinguish between
> accusers who lie and those who are honestly mistaken. Nor does it indicate
> that a rape did not occur, merely that the specific accused is
> innocent....Third, the 1-in-4 figure has 'fuzzy' aspects that could
> influence the results. For example, Neufeld and Scheck mention only sexual
> assault cases that were "referred to the FBI where results could be
> obtained."

First, your comments aren't a reply to my comment, but to yours -- your having
edited my remarks, and added emphasis not present in the original, changes its
meaning. I never said that 20% to 40% of sex reports are lies, as you
insinuate in your edit of my remarks, I said they are false, and they are. My
claim is fully backed up by the FBI report.

Second, when a woman identifies a man as a rapist in a criminal trial, but is
not certain of her identification, in a legal sense she is lying, because to
offer testimony in a criminal trial, a witness must be certain -- and judges
and juries assume witnesses understand this responsibility. If the witness is
uncertain, saying under oath, "He's the perpetrator" in a criminal trial is
not an "honest mistake", it's a separate crime. Therefore a witness saying "I
was mistaken" after the fact, after the legal system makes the assumption that
the identification was certain, is unacceptable, and the original testimony
constitutes a lie.

The responsible-adult solution is obvious -- it's a criminal trial, someone
may lose his freedom and be marked for life with the vilest kind of stigma,
therefore if a witness is not certain, she absolutely must say, "I am not
certain". Therefore the 20% to 40% figure quoted in the article consists of
(a) liars and (b) people who are being criminally irresponsible.

And believe me when I tell you, the prevailing FBI statistics can only hurt
women who come forth to report real sex crimes. The fact that 20% to 40% of
such reports are false is often used by defense attorneys to ruin a woman's
chance to receive a fair hearing. As Wendy McElroy says in the article I
linked, "False accusations are not rare. They are common."

When a woman chooses to accuse any convenient suspect, she may feel a
temporary vindication that some man pays for another man's crime, but in the
long run, all women pay the price for that irresponsible act.

