It always pays to articulate the obvious. Sometimes it pays to articulate the subtle. I am going to talk about Cooperation vs. Competition. About Socialism vs. Capitalism. About game theory.
You decide if my points have merit. If there is fallacy in my metaphor, please identify it. Please save me from even one more minute of erroneous thinking, because life is short. Let's begin.
I like teaching people to do new things. I like physical education because it keeps people healthy. My belief is, that if people are healthy, they will be happier. I like to make people happy. That is who I am. Who are you?
I was teaching someone to play badminton. I like badminton because it combines agility, alertness, quickness and stamina.
The birdie can absorb as much power as a strong person can generate, producing a pop when the birdie goes supersonic. But a person of small stature can also excel. The physics of the game, “levels the playing field”.
Thus this innocent and interesting game can be enjoyed by a diverse group of people. That is another thing about who I am. I advocate things that include diverse groups of people. What do you advocate?
I can discuss the physics of the game and the aerodynamics of the birdie, but that is irrelevant to my point so I won’t. What is critical about badminton is the way in which people interact and contribute to the achievement of the game.
One day I noticed that if a seasoned player faces a novice player, the novice quickly becomes discouraged. Unless they are able to participate in keeping the birdie going back and forth, the game isn’t fun. A self-important seasoned player might obtain some joy in dominating the newer player. But as newer player becomes discouraged the game stops, resulting in no benefit to either player.
Thus emerges our first principle:
“When players are unevenly matched, competition destroys the game.”
Now in terms of coaching, teaching or participating, there is another strategy one can take.
When players are unevenly matched, the responsibility of the stronger player is to return the birdie such that the weaker player is guaranteed the possibility of returning it.
The consequence of this anti-competitive strategy is that the stronger player is now challenged to produce an exacting sort of shot, within the envelope of the weaker player’s skill. The weaker player now has the obligation to at least try to return this buffet platter of a shot. They are obligated to return the favor to the stronger player.
When this strategy is employed a very interesting thing happens. The stronger player begins to fatigue, because it takes more energy and more skill to deliver to the weaker player, this idealized shot, so that the game can continue.
If the game continues in the anti-competitive strategy, after awhile, it becomes the stronger player who withdraws because the demands of the game become so high. But the weaker player improves rapidly as a result of multiple successful returns.
Thus emerges our second principle:
“Anti-competition stresses the stronger player
while improving the weaker player”.
while improving the weaker player”.
The game continues, but only for the duration of the stronger player's ability to endure.
I would say that these principles of competition and anti-competition should be obvious to everyone, but they were only obvious to me after fifty years of life, so perhaps not.
For the game to continue a new strategy MUST emerge. A strategy that takes the needs of both players into account. I call that strategy, the Hybrid Strategy. If you don’t already have it on the tip of your tongue, I will explain how it works.
Two players, a weaker and a stronger player start anti-competitively, enabling the game to be established, allowing the players to assess their position and skillset in the game. The weaker player becomes stronger and the stronger player (a measurable quantity by score…) eventually tires and calls for a strategy switch.
The players now engage the game in a competitive strategy. BUT, the players are now more evenly matched. The weaker player is now stronger, the stronger player is now tired. The game continues until the weaker player no longer wishes to participate, or the roles reverse from the weaker player becoming strong.
Now we have the third and most important principle:
"When both players consent to a strategy switch, the game continues."
The result? Improvement and value-added for both players. When either player does not consent to a strategy switch, the game ends.
Now in politics or government the metaphor can be applied as follows. Players can be Rich vs. Poor. Republican vs. Democrat. Brahman vs. Untouchable. High IQ vs. Low IQ. Strong vs. Weak. Coordinated vs. Clumsy. Citizen vs. Alien. Capitalist vs. Socialist Etc.
The hybrid strategy enriches everyone’s life to the fullest extent, and leads to the most important principle, “Reduction of Harm”. Reduction of Harm is a topic for another essay, but is quite useful in calculating those laws, ordinances and enforcements that are, in some global sense, best for society.
The selflessness of the hybrid strategy ends up benefiting both parties to the maximum degree.
We know this intuitively. How can we put it into practice?
