Melania Trump: "Be Best"

[MigL]

18 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Absolutes don't work here.

To be fair, John did mention that ...

16 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's not an absolute thing- the best you can say is that encouraging collaboration drives down bullying and drives down competition. 

And speaking of absolutes, while I may have argued against some of the points Phi made, I can also agree with hem to a certain extent.

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

critical thinking does seem to be on the decline in the US.

Why is that happening?
 

Oh, I forgot, it's government policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

[joigus]

I don't know whether this is lateral, collateral or perpendicular to what's being discussed, but I've noticed that in modern democracies, it's become increasingly irrelevant what comes out of the mouths of people in Government or, in this case, the First Lady.

This suggests to me that, to a high degree, decisions are taken by Gov. officials and technocrats, and high-profile politicians are there just to not lose face, and respond to people's pet peeves, manias and prejudices (mainly in press conference before a camera or mic), so they (the people) get the feel that their whining is being responded to.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't know whether this is lateral, collateral or perpendicular to what's being discussed, but I've noticed that in modern democracies, it's become increasingly irrelevant what comes out of the mouths of people in Government or, in this case, the First Lady.

This suggests to me that, to a high degree, decisions are taken by Gov. officials and technocrats, and high-profile politicians are there just to not lose face, and respond to people's pet peeves, manias and prejudices (mainly in press conference before a camera or mic), so they (the people) get the feel that their whining is being responded to.

Not to mention perpetuating the "American dream" where all that competition is rewarded with untold wealth and a hollow feeling...

[Ten oz]

@MigL, competition confined to international sport and organized sports broadly have clear established rules which cannot be changed mid play and all participants are volunteers. If people who didn't want to participate in a hockey game were forced to and the rules of the game manipulatable by top players than it would absolutely be bullying. The Olympic games and FIFA worldcup are poor analogies. No one is entering those competitions who doesn't want to be there, has had time to prepare, conformations of what the rules will be, etc, etc. Rate Race of life itself is far less of a safe pace. The rules are dynamic and people are often forced to participate in ways they do not want to and aren't comfortable with.

[dimreepr]

The first lady knows what I mean...

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I found "standing up to them", while it often lead to physical or metaphorical beatings, eventually defeated them, or - in some cases - 'converted' them. There is an element of the bully in all of us and the most effective solution will depened on the environment, the nature of the bully and the character of the bullied. Absolutes don't work here.

Here's an absolute, bullies are made not born; I wonder where they learn?

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Competition means making yourself better.
Bullying means making others worse.
They are not equivalent.

I carefully framed the competitive concept of DOMINATION as an overriding concern that turns competitive spirit into bullying. I think your argument is weak for not addressing that most important part of my argument.

We've all seen it in sports, where the drive to be the best causes some players to unleash brutal, inhuman injury on fellow players for the sake of the win. How many people watching on TV cheer for their team when things like that happen (I was particularly disgusted by a clip showing one US football player ripping the helmet off another player and then use it as a weapon to hit him in the head)?

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I'd rather play a competitive sport than run for office; but thanks anyway.
Less life-long obesity for kids that way.

Perhaps the parts of competitive sports you're romanticizing are the parts where you pull together as a team to do your best to win? I see that as more of a cooperative endeavor, but maybe you played tennis or golf rather than baseball or basketball? Teams may compete against each other, but they're only good at it after a LOT of healthy cooperation.

11 hours ago, MigL said:

And how would you know who's actually learned anything ?

In the example I used, the students were monitored during their projects, which are set up so they have to apply what they've learned in order to complete the work. You know exactly who has learned what, but the projects aren't judged on whose is good/better/best.

11 hours ago, MigL said:

It was competition with the Russians that spurred mankind to its greatest achievement; putting men on the moon.

And all those folks working on Apollo were competing individually to be one of the people whose designs or ideas actually got used on the mission? NASA used teams of people cooperating to achieve what they did. The USSR also wouldn't have been able to do as well as they did without massive cooperation.

And think about what they all could have done if they'd cooperated with each other instead of competing? Think about how much further those missions could have gone without all that duplication of effort? JFK thought about it, and when they installed the red phone with Moscow after the Cuban missile crisis, he actually proposed that the US, the USSR, and other countries work together to reach the moon. The suggestion fell flat initially, and JFK didn't get much time after that to push for cooperation over competition.

 

[MigL]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, Phi.
but i'm not ready to view competition as the great evil you want to make it out to be.
As John and Endy have said, there are no absolutes; this is simply a matter of viewing a glass as half full or half empty.
Yes, competition, if driven by the wrong goal, can lead to conflict ( and bullying ), but the right goal will lead to making all of us better.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And think about what they all could have done if they'd cooperated with each other instead of competing? Think about how much further those missions could have gone without all that duplication of effort?

The competition with the USSR ( cold war ) spurred all sciences and technologies in the US to co-operate towards a common goal. That of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade ( 60s ).
As of late, the US and Russia have co-operated on a number of space related missions, from using a common launcher, to space stations.
But nothing very ambitious has been accomplished ( remember the promised Mars missions before the turn of the century ? ). The will, and the funding, are much reduced, since the middle 70s, without competition pushing technological advancement.

 

edit :

The upcoming US Presidential election is a competition to see who can gain the most votes.
( not actually, because of your electoral college system )

Do you think political parties should propose to the electorate
"We have to destroy those Republican/Democrat rat-bastards and make them second-class citizens"

Or do you think they should propose to the electorate
"We have to show our Republican/Democrat fellow citizens, that ours is the better way"

Both of those sentiments aim to win the election competition, but only the second option will benefit all Americans and make them ( and the country )  better, if not ( the ) best, again.

Edited August 29, 2020 by MigL

[Area54]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And think about what they all could have done if they'd cooperated with each other instead of competing? Think about how much further those missions could have gone without all that duplication of effort? JFK thought about it, and when they installed the red phone with Moscow after the Cuban missile crisis, he actually proposed that the US, the USSR, and other countries work together to reach the moon. The suggestion fell flat initially, and JFK didn't get much time after that to push for cooperation over competition.

It is a noble aim, but our evolutionary history - not just the last couple of million years as human, or near human, but the 3,5 billion years since oure remote ancestors started replicating  - that evolutionary history points up the value of competition, just as much as cooperation. Ignore either at your peril: it's a proven way to avoid leaving your mark in the gene pool.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, Phi.
but i'm not ready to view competition as the great evil you want to make it out to be.

Nobody asked you to look at it that way, though. What will it take to get you to put away your wide brush for a bit? I was pretty specific about the kinds of competition I'm referring to.

Like many things, competition and cooperation are tools we use to shape our lives. There are obviously situations where competition may be the best tool to use, so I'm not sure where you get "evil" from. On the other hand, when is competition ever the right response while driving a car that isn't in a race?

I see cooperation as higher-order thinking, and I think it produces higher-order solutions. All animals compete, but not all cooperate, and very few can be as successful at it as humans. Competition has its place, and I think it's overused because it's easier to pit people against each other than to get them to work together, but I feel cooperation should  be a more modern, evolved solution.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

It is a noble aim, but our evolutionary history - not just the last couple of million years as human, or near human, but the 3,5 billion years since oure remote ancestors started replicating  - that evolutionary history points up the value of competition, just as much as cooperation. Ignore either at your peril: it's a proven way to avoid leaving your mark in the gene pool.

Evolution supports my arguments better than yours. Adding cooperation to our skillset (along with bipedalism, tool use, and wicked-intricate communication) elevated us above competing animal groups looking only for their next meal. More telling, our societies wouldn't be possible if we didn't see the benefits of cooperation as opposed to competing for resources. 

Competition elevates individuals, and that can be a great investment, but everything fabulous humans have accomplished for the species has been more cooperative. Especially with intellectual endeavors, I'd rather see the results of 100 people cooperating to solve a problem than those same folks competing. 

[MigL]

OK, not all competition can be arguably compared to bullying.
( … putting aside my wide brush ... )

Getting back to the OP, when M Trump says "Be best", it implies be the best YOU can be.
It says nothing about dominating or belittling others or their accomplishments.

It was at this point that Airbrush said, yesterday at 1:14 pm
"By calling it "Be Best" it sounds like you should try to be the best ONE in your pond, which implies one should be competitive.  How does that stop bullying?"

Seems to me he's the one using the 'wide brush' and calling ALL competition = bullying, and you posted some examples where it does.
My posts have been simply pointing out that NOT ALL competition = bullying, and I posted some examples where competition actually works best.

I'll be glad to explain again, if you're still confused.

[moth]

I think competition with no rules of engagement will only find the most ruthless. 
Cooperation is required to establish and enforce those rules.
Anything Trump inc. says is designed to prevent cooperation. Divide and conquer.

I always suspected Phi was Vorlon and Migl was so called Shadow.

Edited August 29, 2020 by moth
spelling

[iNow]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

The upcoming US Presidential election is a competition to see who can gain the most votes.

If only that were true. Biden could win by as many as 5,000,000 votes and still lose 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Getting back to the OP, when M Trump says "Be best", it implies be the best YOU can be.

I don't think Melania writes her public statements or takes much interest in them. Melania hasn't shown any interest in politics at all that I can perceive. Doesn't appear to be altruistic in anyway. She looks like a hostage a lot of the time. We know the White House has speech writers and publicists. I assume "Be best" came from those writers. Writers have a more strategic way of looking at things. Be best  is Innocuous enough to mean whatever one want to project on to it. I do not think it is specifically meant to mean anything. I think it's meant to be brief, cute, repeatable, and so on. I think this thread has probably already given Be best more thought than Melania has given it.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, moth said:

I always suspected Phi was Vorlon and Migl was so called Shadow.

No, not really

"The Shadows believed that strength and growth came through conflict, and so they would start wars throughout the galaxy with the notion that those who survived would be stronger and better."
( from the Babylon Project )

The only 'conflict' I believe in, is a good argument to pass the time.
Phi, and some others, often oblige me.
( I hope I do the same for them )

There are also the occasional 'bad' arguments, usually provided by 'cranks'.

[moth]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

There are also the occasional 'bad' arguments, usually provided by 'cranks'.

 

Sorry if i misunderstood you. I feel like conflict and war are competition.
You agree Phi is probably Vorlon though, right?

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, moth said:

You agree Phi is probably Vorlon though, right?

It’s spelled Voltron 

[iNow]

Edited August 30, 2020 by iNow

[Ten oz]

^^^^I could be reading into this wrong. 100% could be imagining what isn't there. To me the face Melania makes is a reaction to the brief interaction between between Donald and Ivanka and not just dislike Ivanka. Melania smile, while forced as it mostly always is, seems standard. As Ivanka passes Donald moves a little and appears to look down at wear Ivanka is walking, what she is wear, or etc. That brief look is what appears to receive the negative response. It is hard to see on the video in the tweet because of the way its framed. Below is a wide shot.

 

 

[Area54]

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Evolution supports my arguments better than yours. Adding cooperation to our skillset (along with bipedalism, tool use, and wicked-intricate communication) elevated us above competing animal groups looking only for their next meal. More telling, our societies wouldn't be possible if we didn't see the benefits of cooperation as opposed to competing for resources. 

Competition elevates individuals, and that can be a great investment, but everything fabulous humans have accomplished for the species has been more cooperative. Especially with intellectual endeavors, I'd rather see the results of 100 people cooperating to solve a problem than those same folks competing. 

Well, if you ignore the countless examples of cooperation within nature that evolution has provided to practically every species then your conclusions are sound. Unfortunately for your argument it is refuted by the diversity and the quality and the quantity of evidence that shows the existence of cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system. I respond to your unsupported assertion that places the emphasis upon cooperation and repeat my own: the success of any species is attributable to a blend of cooperation and competition.

You may not like it, but scarcely any purchase, whether it be of a loaf, a textbook, or a fleet of main battle tanks, is not made without a decision between competitive providers. That is everything we use in our daily lives, from our food, to our homes, to highways we drive on, is the product of competitive decisions in which, if Tesco wins, then ASDA, Sainsbur's, Lidl and Waitrose all lose. (Or General Dynamics wins, Thales and BAe Systems lose.)

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Well, if you ignore the countless examples of cooperation within nature that evolution has provided to practically every species then your conclusions are sound. Unfortunately for your argument it is refuted by the diversity and the quality and the quantity of evidence that shows the existence of cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system. I respond to your unsupported assertion that places the emphasis upon cooperation and repeat my own: the success of any species is attributable to a blend of cooperation and competition.

You may not like it, but scarcely any purchase, whether it be of a loaf, a textbook, or a fleet of main battle tanks, is not made without a decision between competitive providers. That is everything we use in our daily lives, from our food, to our homes, to highways we drive on, is the product of competitive decisions in which, if Tesco wins, then ASDA, Sainsbur's, Lidl and Waitrose all lose. (Or General Dynamics wins, Thales and BAe Systems lose.)

Natural Selection isn't a process which should be conflated with cooperation in nature. More species have gone extinct than currently exist. The only species that can exist are the ones with characteristics suitable to the environment.Cooperation implies some form of intentional unified effort. Evolution doesn't have motives or goals. You're broadening definition out to the point they have no meaning. Describing ocean tides as cooperating with gravity may sound poetic or easily digestible but is inaccurate. Tides are influenced by gravity. There is no cooperation at play.

A human individually would struggle to meet the demands of survival. Human's are a group living animal. Not a solitary animal. Humans require the assistance of other humans to survive. Humans evolved that way. We (Humans) are a cooperative species. We have lived in groups the entirety of our species existence. Sharing our knowledge, skills, goals, etc has allowed civilization to thrive. Competition has not been useful as cooperation.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Well, if you ignore the countless examples of cooperation within nature that evolution has provided to practically every species then your conclusions are sound. Unfortunately for your argument it is refuted by the diversity and the quality and the quantity of evidence that shows the existence of cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system. I respond to your unsupported assertion that places the emphasis upon cooperation and repeat my own: the success of any species is attributable to a blend of cooperation and competition.

You may not like it, but scarcely any purchase, whether it be of a loaf, a textbook, or a fleet of main battle tanks, is not made without a decision between competitive providers. That is everything we use in our daily lives, from our food, to our homes, to highways we drive on, is the product of competitive decisions in which, if Tesco wins, then ASDA, Sainsbur's, Lidl and Waitrose all lose. (Or General Dynamics wins, Thales and BAe Systems lose.)

You continue to assume competition provides the most competitive canvass, whereas it actually just leads to the basist system; the race to the bottom is a competition...

 

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Natural Selection isn't a process which should be conflated with cooperation in nature.

Then it is just as well that I did not do so. I simply noted , or at least implied,  that evolution (through processes of natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift) has periodically "favoured" cooperative behaviour. It has also favoured competitive behaviour. Are you seriously challenging these points? If so, lets see some supporting evidence.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Cooperation implies some form of intentional unified effort.

Well, there are broader usages of the term that can be productive in providing a perspective on aspects of biology, but we can run with the more commonplace one here with an important caveat. "Intentional" is a loaded word that, to me, implies conscious intent. The greater part of animal behaviour is not conscious. (It's questionable how much of human behaviour is conscious.) So, as long as by intentional you mean that the behviour is a natural product of the organisms reaction to its environment then good.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Evolution doesn't have motives or goals. You're broadening definition out to the point they have no meaning.

No idea where you got that. I have not suggested that evolution has goals. I repudiate such a notion as farcical. In what way do you think I have broadened the definition of evolution? Frankly, I think (and hope) I am misunderstanding you, for you seem to be denying that cooperative behaviour evolved.Perhaps, you can clarify that.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

A human individually would struggle to meet the demands of survival. Human's are a group living animal. Not a solitary animal. Humans require the assistance of other humans to survive. Humans evolved that way.

Which is precisely what I have been saying. The fact that we are also competiive is equally a product of evolution. This is Biology101. I am bemused it is even being dicsussed.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Competition has not been useful as cooperation.

An unsupported assertion is a mere opinion. I don't know the relative importance of competive behaviour to cooperative behaviour amongst humans. (If I have posted anything to the contrary then it was sloppy writing.) I suggest that your belief that you know which is more important is dubious at best. Feel free to present substanive, solid, peer reviewed references to justify your claim.

 

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You continue to assume competition provides the most competitive canvass

I don't know what you mean by that. Please clarify.

I make no assumptions. I observe that there are elements of comeptition across the whole range of human endeavour and behaviour. Do you deny this?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

I make no assumptions. I observe that there are elements of comeptition across the whole range of human endeavour and behaviour. Do you deny this?

Why would I? 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Then it is just as well that I did not do so. I simply noted , or at least implied,  that evolution (through processes of natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift) has periodically "favoured" cooperative behaviour. It has also favoured competitive behaviour. Are you seriously challenging these points? If so, lets see some supporting evidence.

You wrote "cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system."  That is the conflation I was referencing. That isn't a description of both competitive and cooperation behaviors being favored. It is a messy contextually misuse of how national selection works and the meaning of cooperation.

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Well, there are broader usages of the term that can be productive in providing a perspective on aspects of biology

Matters vital for an organism to live or interacting with its environment are called processes not cooperation. There are biological processes. That is a field of study. It is not useful to broaden the meaning of cooperation as you are.

13 minutes ago, Area54 said:

No idea where you got that. I have not suggested that evolution has goals

Cooperation has goals.

14 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Which is precisely what I have been saying. The fact that we are also competiive is equally a product of evolution. This is Biology101. I am bemused it is even being dicsussed.

Biology 101 studies the biological process. Not the pros & cons of competitiveness.

 

Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without cooperation with one another? Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without competitiveness towards one another?