Should society encourage collaboration or competition?

[Ivy Newton]

Specifically, should schools encourage students to collaborate with each other and work together to solve problems, or compete with each other and try to be the best at the expense of others? Which mindset is more useful in society?

Discuss.

I don't really have a specific opinion on the matter, but I'm curious what other people think. I will provide some initial talking points:

Encouraging competition: This mindset can encourage innovation, as if people are trying to do better than others, they may be more likely to come up with revolutionary new ideas - they have more incentive to create new things as this will give them an advantage over others.

Encouraging collaboration: Basically, this boils down to the idea that two heads are better than one, that by collaborating everyone can contribute their own expertise and conclusions can be reached which would not have been reached alone.

Hmmm... maybe collaboration is better if there's a specific problem to be solved, while competition is better if the point is to discover new things?

Anyways, go forth and discuss!

 

[Aletheia]

Hm. Similarly torn between the two here.

On one hand, we as a species have the potential to achieve great things if we cooperate (you know, instead of destroying each other like we always end up doing). Then there's social Darwinism, which says that competition is natural and we should all try to gain supremacy over one another in order to survive. It really comes down to whether you see humans as social beings or subjects to the same requirements (i.e. competition) as other animals.

 

[Zero Moment]

I think that schools should encourage students to collaborate with a few people to compete with others.

 

[Tarvos]

That depends on the assignment. Sometimes collaboration is necessary and sometimes competition is a good thing.

 

[Aobaru]

This is kind of a broad question. It really depends on the situation. If you mean in the business world, of course competition is best; it fosters innovation. But with stuff like community outreach, volunteering, etc., of course collaboration is best.

 

[opaltiger]

Then there's social Darwinism, which says that competition is natural and we should all try to gain supremacy over one another in order to survive.

Oh jesus christ no. Social Darwinism is a horrible concept arising from a complete misconception of Darwinism. :(

 

[Harlequin]

I'm not sure that we should have to make a choice between them. Each kind of thing is useful in different contexts, and I think to prefer one over the other in every situation would be unhelpful.

 

[Aobaru]

Oh jesus christ no. Social Darwinism is a horrible concept arising from a complete misconception of Darwinism. :(

Isn't it just Darwinism applied to society?

 

[Butterfree]

Social Darwinism makes the completely unwarranted (and pretty reprehensible) assumption that because this is the way things work in nature, that's the way they should work in society, which simply does not follow. Dawinism is not a moral system; it's an explanation of how biological diversity naturally arises from the mechanics of inheritance. The good thing about being human is that we understand evolution and have the conscious ability to say, "Well, fuck the survival of our genes; let's use contraception anyway."

Both are pretty healthy, but if it had to be one or the other we'd be a lot better off with pure cooperation than pure competition, since pure competition tends to lead to hatred and stress and all manner of negativity.

 

[opaltiger]

Social Darwinism makes the completely unwarranted (and pretty reprehensible) assumption that because this is the way things work in nature, that's the way they should work in society, which simply does not follow.

Also, it tends to assume that evolution is a goal-directed process.