You'd rather die than lose an argument. You simply must win. "Losing" is not part of your vocabulary. Every little thing matters. You cant stand even being second in a queue. You are always devising strategies to win, win, win. Conversations are opportunities to prove your superior knowledge, experience and skill. You like to be top dog, especially among family members. You let others win. Winning is not everything. Winning takes too much effort sometimes. Focussing on winning is too stressful. You look for people who share your lack of interest in competition. You don't mind being a "loser". At least you are easygoing.
I'm not at all competitive. I don't have to be; I just ensure that my opinion is the right one and that obviates the need for the argument in the first place
So for the CW exercise we would write individual A (nos 1-5) in dialogue with person B (nos 8-13). My [prejudicial(?)] inclinations lean toward the militarist bulldog/bullet face moron barking at the vegan book shop assistant with her cat. So, probably attempt to subvert those cliches, if that's correct, somehow... ... Yes, probably a direct swap of the traits - mild mannered soldier/aggressive hippy.
If the scale is from 1 to 13, then I am 927. The important thing is always something else than winning or losing. "Winning or losing an argument..."? That concept is rubbish. You can be right or wrong, more or less. Reality does the winning. Utopia does the loosing. If you are on the side of reality, you don't win. Reality does. If you are on the side of Utopia, you loose no matter if you ”win" or loose some arguments. If you want to find interesting characters, seek loosers. They don't value you, before you have been in the level where you need a showel to get deeper. And they are right. Surviving or not... That is important... sometimes. Do I get a coin in a fancy string? What can be less important? Focus on winning... Why? No point, no use, not interesting... You do what you do and sometimes you do it well. Sometimes you do it as well as you can. If someone else gives that quality some credit, it is good. But still... The important thing is quality. Just be real. Take the side of reality. Seek realism. See what is real and what is not. Someone wants to compete with you? Give him/her head start and go to totally different direction. Let him/her compete with imaginary beings he/she creates for competing. It is not your problem or your direction. If he/she does it again, do it again. If he/she does not stop, crush him/her. It is not competition but combat then. No rules, no winners. Take care that you are the one who survives - if anyone does.
Interestingly (or not) I find it surprising that men in their sixtees and over can be just as comptettive as younger ones. I visited a friend the other day and we were doing some gardening, and he was going at a much faster harder pace than me. I felt like saying "what's the hurry?" This guy was eight years older than me! I had to admit he was fitter though. Then it came to music and he wanted share his love of guitar. I played a few chords and suddenly he wasn't interested. Guess he was disappointed that I was better than him. If I really look hard at myself, I feel more competitive when I stand a chance. When I smell a victory is possible or even probable. Ive noticed on forums like twitter than any debate which requires lots of left brain logic and hard cold scientific evidence, I tend to falter. And I can sense that the wolves are out. I stimulate their thirst for domination, control and slaughter!! Come to think of it, that is my most redeeming feature. I give others a very good chance of winning. maybe you havent won for a while. I can reactivate those competitive instincts that have remained dormant in you. You are a winner once more!
I'm not competitive. I don't have to be, because I'm better than you. No, wait. That's not the reason I'm non-competitive. I'm non-competitive because competing makes me miserable. If I lose, I'm miserable for having lost. If I win, I'm miserable for having caused someone else misery. Either way, I'm miserable. I don't get any joy out of causing someone to be defeated. I don't like to pose with one foot on the lifeless chest of my opponent and my sword arm raised in victory. Ugh. I despise people who enjoy that.
Yeah, that's me as well. I like to be respected for what I can do well, but I don't have to be 'the best.' That seems like a real waste of time to me. However, I don't like being steamrollered. I will stand up for myself and refuse to back down, if necessary. But domination of others and /or 'winning,' isn't important to me. In fact, it can make me uncomfortable, the way Minstrel illustrated. Nor is getting the last word important to me. Once I've made my points, and I'm sure the other person has 'got' them—even if they don't agree—I can walk away, quite happily. As soon as an argument gets nasty or personal, I'm outta here. I do admit when I'm wrong about something. That took a while for me to be able to do. Not because I can't accept being wrong, but because admitting mistakes to the wrong people leaves me open to direct attack. I've been around too many people in my life who use a single incident of my 'wrongness' to never let me forget it, and also to assert that because I was wrong once, I'll be wrong about everything forevermore. However, I now consider this toxic behaviour on their part, and I will tune this person out if they continue to try to make me 'pay' for being wrong about something once upon a time. (These people never acknowledge the number of times I've been 'right,' and I don't bother to remind them. What's the point?) I will admit I'm wrong, when I think I am, but the other person needs to accept it and move on—and not throw my past mistakes in my face at every opportunity. I don't say 'I told you so,' to other people. And I'm not impressed when people say it to me.
I had to check myself on the issue. Probably I am competitive - but the mind is delusional - I choose my own script and narrative. Even beyond the grave 'the plucky underdog wins out in the end. Look at these manuscripts piled amidst the ashtrays. Who'd have thought? That's why the world comes together for @matwoolf day every January 1st...Here on Radio 4 we once again debate his legacy in reference to that other great commentator of our times William Shakespeare. So, professor Knut, was @matwoolf simply better than Shakespeare?' 'Thank you, Melvyn. I have studied extensively the detractors, the so-called November criminals in shaping my portfolio of @matwoolf appreciations...' 'Primarily @Moose, the homicidal beach warden with his jam jars?' 'Not only @Moose, of course. There is the Canadian...' 'Sorry, I must stop you there...this is a daytime show.' 'Well, instead perhaps investigate the legendary Pinocchio figure of Hispaniola fable...' 'Some kind of warlord, I believe?' 'Cruel and literary...' SHUDDERS wip
Yeah, in men (and possibly women) I think competitiveness is proportional to ones self image and personal insecurities. So over someones life, if you graphed their overall competitiveness, you'd get the rough shape of an inverse bell curve that's peaked in adolescence, when most people develop their self awareness, have the least control, and peak amount of insecurities, which would then drop as one comes into their own as an adult, reaching a low point around the mid-thirties when their at their physical peak and then start to slowly rise again as signs of age start to sap their perception of their own virility and keeps rising slowly while Inevitability goes from being acquaintances to room-mates, until they hit a drop-off I'm going to call Don't Give A Shit Trench.
That is wise. Reality gets the last word - every time. If we know that, we don't have any need to compete about last words.
I'm competitive, but not idiotically competitive. I only care about winning things that matter. Although, I admit that in arguments I can get carried away. I was worse as a teenager, but even today I'll argue until the other person decides to just stop. Which always annoys me a little bit because they havn't changed their mind, but aren't defending their opinion. To me, this seems ridiculous. But I understand that people don't really change their minds about much of anything. And if they do, it's not going to be because of an argument you made. Nevertheless, I enjoy the exercise.
I think arguing or debating a topic without focussing on winning is a highly admirable character trait. How many of us are more interested in owning the truth than the truth itself? Just as an example, some people love statistics and use it as a "clincher" but I question the validity of such claims anyway. And how many of us truly aspire to humility? Humility and a competitive nature are at odds it would seem.
Interesting isn't it. We don't like competitiveness in others and we are either unaware of our own or choose to have a blind spot. ( or actually don't have any, which is rare these days)
Don't assume that because you enjoy the exercise, the other person does, too. They're not defending their opinions for exactly the reason you just brought up: people don't change their minds because of an argument you made. They're not going to change your mind even if they're right and you're wrong, and they know that, so arguing is a complete waste of time for them. They'd rather go read a book or walk the dog or watch paint dry. Anything other than listen to you. Generally, if I find myself arguing with someone, I just start looking for a polite way to tell them to please shut up and go away.
I know what you're saying. That winning is not all it is cracked up to be. Having said that, if I have been on the receiving end of rude, opinionated, dogmatic, teasing, bullying and myopic argumentativeness, I don't mind seeing the perpetrator suffer for a while. It might be good for their soul and I will see some justice being served in this life after all. Call it revenge if you like. I'm going to call it justice.
I was thinking that myself, just the other day. Sooner or later, it will become obvious what is true and what's not. (Whether people are willing to admit they might have been wrong—as incessant flooding laps at their feet, or crazy weather patterns blows their house down every year—is another story!)
Yeah. If somebody can make a point in a clear, non-aggressive and non-personal way, they are more likely to get you thinking about what they said. And THAT can change minds. However, it's unlikely to happen on the spot. Making your point and then walking away isn't shirking the issue. Same as walking away to think again doesn't mean you won't change your mind. It's combat rather than argument that is useless. Rational or emotional arguments can change minds, but confrontations simply boil down to personalities. If you're aggressive, you keep at it until the other person slinks away. If you're a passive person, you slink away. Neither of these activities has ANYTHING TO DO with the rightness or wrongness of the position being argued. "Just because you silence me, doesn't make you right."
I've never been presented with the opportunity to know how competitive I am in real life. In writing, I might be competitive. I would go the distance to secure my spot in a litmag that I want to be in. Out of writing, I'm not competitive at all. I'll be at 11. It's too much stress and effort to be competitive. I'd rather be comfortable and at peace.
