Talk:Competition/Archives/2013

competition vs cooperation?
Before I leap in and add anything, would you consider adding a coda to the page? The terms competition and cooperation are studied separately in the West, but from an Eastern perspective they are considered as necessarily interdependent processes, if they are considered at all. There the perspective on interaction is one of synergy. Since wikipedia is for all peoples this might help to link the gulf in perspectives.

Remarks from Pepper
“For example, inter-species competition, including between humans, is the driving force of adaptation and ultimately, evolution.”

Shouldn’t that be “intra-species”? The next sentence should perhaps be put into the past tense - “claimed” - and instead of “questionable” maybe “however this belief, which had its hey-day around the turn of the twentieth century, is long since discredited”

A broader and deeper matter. It seems to me that there are three, not two, modes of interaction: competition, cooperation, and coercion. It seems to me that all three are pervasive, operating at the macro level (lions, daffodils), the micro level (germs, blood cells), and at the molecular level within living cells (viruses, hormones). It seems to me that there are no other modes of interaction.

Further, it seems to me that of the three competition is paramount, that the other two serve and moderate competition, that competition may occur without the other two but the other two cannot occur without competition being present. For example you coerce (say, point a pistol) in order to extract something (money, sex) that will give you competitive advantage. For example you cooperate (say, in a fishermen’s coop) in order to better compete (in the fishing industry).

I am wondering: Has anyone else made these connections? - Pepper 150.203.2.85 09:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. In order to adabtation of a species to new environmental conditions to occur there needs to be individual variation in the species, much more variation than what the present conditions demand. A healthy amount of competition inside the species keeps its genes from deteriorating and makes adabtation quicker.InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the article: "Competition between members of a species ("intraspecific") is the driving force behind evolution and natural selection;" - I do not understand how it can associate competition with evolution. Isn't evolution due to "copying error" and mutation of the gene instead of any form of competition? Are we referring to competition between dominant and recessive gene here? I think the writer missed the point that evolution is not identical to natural selection. --121.44.53.218 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Types of competition, contrary (cooperation)?
We cover some very different types of competition. For example, 2 animals may compete for an apple. If they fight to determine who gets it, they may harm themselves so much that none of them can reach the apple in the end. Cooperation may be seen as the opposite approach here, ensuring a higher collective gain. In this context, I'd agree with the article that cooperation is the opposite of competition. But if we take a tennis championship as example, players have to compete for the cup. What would be the contrary of competition in such a scenario? How would cooperation between tennis players make sense?

I would have suggested altruism as the opposite of competition in some contexts. However, competition and cooperation seem to involve at least 2 individuals, while altruism can be chosen by a single party. --Chealer (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Different topics
Most of this article is about the abstract concept of competition; but several sections are about a very different topic: competitions as organised human social activities (sporting, literary etc). I think the latter should be removed to a separate article, perhaps called "Competition (cultural event)". --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)