A in the b your last statement shows your glaring lack of logic. Competition does not have a negative scale your interpretation of lack of competition is logically flawed. What you consider LACK of competition is precisely the level of competition I enjoy.

So actually you're not being honest, you're being biased. I'm right and you're wrong and nothing you ever say could ever influence or alter my judgement.

Sincerely,

Bis

I also applaud the honesty here. 

In my former life coaching HS debate, I ran into this personality trait a lot. A lot of people get mislabeled as "competitive" or "overly competitive" as kids, but as others have noted, that's not quite right. An extreme aversion to losing is not what we mean by "competitive"; though many competitive people do hate to lose. You're "competitive" when you love to compete; flipping out when you lose is something else. It's not really fear, either. It's more like a lack of empathy. That sounds like an overly psychological term, and I'm certainly not qualified to diagnose anyone on the internet. But I really just mean that for some people, it's really difficult to imagine what is going on in the opponents head during a competitive situation. It's hard for them to "put the shoe on the other foot" and see any kind of loss as legitimate. Again, I am not diagnosing anyone, but this does tend to pop up a lot with people who show up on the autism scale, like Asperger's Syndrome. Anyway, it probably has nothing to do with fear or maturity - it really can be as simple as a personality difference. 

Of course, it will be important for those types to be as self-aware as possible to avoid serious problems in their personal relationships. Family card games, for example, may not be a good idea.

I don't know about everyone else, but I actually applaud the honesty you're (Bistiza, in case that wasn't clear) showing and have shown throughout this whole conversation.  It's exceedingly rare to see that on these forums.

This is the most fascinating post I've ever seen in my life. I want to know more about thisbbarizta guy as a person. What he does for work, how old he is, everything about his upbringing and life.

I just want to understand him.

Biz,

Let's say I created a video game in which you had to complete a task. Let's say make a three point shot. All you had to do was press the X button and your player would shoot and make it every time, thus you win. Would that appeal to you?

What if everything was the same but a defendrr was trying to stop you visually adding competition but actually had no effect so you still made every shot and always won. Would that appeal to you?

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Seems like what you are doing is more accurately described as enjoying the LACK of competition, just to be honest?

Competition is going against an opponent and trying your best to get the win. It's not any less or more competitive whether your opponent is the world's best at whatever you're playing or the world's worst or anywhere between - your goal is simply to get the W. That's competition to me.


When I play games, I want them to be fun. When I'm angry and frustrated, that's not having fun, and I'm angry and frustrated when I lose.

Who among us wants to be angry and frustrated? Not many people, I'd imagine. So if you can find a way to be less angry and frustrated, why would you not want to do it?

THAT is why when I play video games, I make sure I never lose. It's also why I wish WIS would put out a version of HD where you can play in your own world against only SimAI opponents. It probably won't happen, but I'd be thrilled if it did.

Posted by milwood on 3/13/2015 5:02:00 PM (view original):
A in the b your last statement shows your glaring lack of logic. Competition does not have a negative scale your interpretation of lack of competition is logically flawed. What you consider LACK of competition is precisely the level of competition I enjoy.

So actually you're not being honest, you're being biased. I'm right and you're wrong and nothing you ever say could ever influence or alter my judgement.

Sincerely,

Bis

That's not anything like what I said, actually...but I find it oddly funny that you think you know what I would say to that incredible extent...

Posted by pkoopman on 3/13/2015 5:16:00 PM (view original):

I also applaud the honesty here. 

In my former life coaching HS debate, I ran into this personality trait a lot. A lot of people get mislabeled as "competitive" or "overly competitive" as kids, but as others have noted, that's not quite right. An extreme aversion to losing is not what we mean by "competitive"; though many competitive people do hate to lose. You're "competitive" when you love to compete; flipping out when you lose is something else. It's not really fear, either. It's more like a lack of empathy. That sounds like an overly psychological term, and I'm certainly not qualified to diagnose anyone on the internet. But I really just mean that for some people, it's really difficult to imagine what is going on in the opponents head during a competitive situation. It's hard for them to "put the shoe on the other foot" and see any kind of loss as legitimate. Again, I am not diagnosing anyone, but this does tend to pop up a lot with people who show up on the autism scale, like Asperger's Syndrome. Anyway, it probably has nothing to do with fear or maturity - it really can be as simple as a personality difference. 

Of course, it will be important for those types to be as self-aware as possible to avoid serious problems in their personal relationships. Family card games, for example, may not be a good idea.

I'm actually overly empathetic. Seriously, I'm not kidding, I"m always trying to view things from the other person's point of view.

That's why I enjoy destroying the computer on a video game or the SimAI on here - they don't have feelings, so I don't need to fee badly about beating them or worry about how they viewed the game.

It's important to note that I'm only this way when it comes to games such as this one. I probably didn't mention it before, and that may be a big oversight, but your post about family card games put it forefront in my mind.

Specifically, I can play a family card game and not care if I win or lose or tie or whatever. I'm only in it for the fun of goofing around and playing a game together.

The difference is that when I play a sports video game (or an online simulation equivalent such as HD), I am ONLY out for the wins. I get no joy from anything other than victory here.

I'm also this way when I play sports in real life.

I was a semi-pro bowler for a few years. I say semi-pro and not actual pro in deference to those who are real pros, because whenever I played on tour against a real pro, I almost always lost (though it felt really good when I did get a win, usually because they got unlucky somehow).

To be fair to myself and to them, the reason I usually lost is because real bowling pros can adjust to lane conditions far better than those of us who are wanna-bes and play the same conditions in leagues week after week.  Anyway I hated losing there too. It was frustrating, and it was far more fun to be one of the best bowlers in league play than to be just about the worst bowler at pro events.

So you see, it's all about what you find fun. It was educational and an experience to get my *** handed to me by a real professional bowler, but it wasn't fun. It was much more fun to win regularly in league. Someone else may have found it to be more fun to be challenged by the pros all the time, and that's okay too, but it wasn't for me.

To each their own. Just don't judge me because my fun is in winning and yours is in the challenge, or whatever it may be.

Posted by bistiza on 3/13/2015 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Seems like what you are doing is more accurately described as enjoying the LACK of competition, just to be honest?

Competition is going against an opponent and trying your best to get the win. It's not any less or more competitive whether your opponent is the world's best at whatever you're playing or the world's worst or anywhere between - your goal is simply to get the W. That's competition to me.


When I play games, I want them to be fun. When I'm angry and frustrated, that's not having fun, and I'm angry and frustrated when I lose.

Who among us wants to be angry and frustrated? Not many people, I'd imagine. So if you can find a way to be less angry and frustrated, why would you not want to do it?

THAT is why when I play video games, I make sure I never lose. It's also why I wish WIS would put out a version of HD where you can play in your own world against only SimAI opponents. It probably won't happen, but I'd be thrilled if it did.

But, and believe me, I'm really not being hostile here I'm just genuinely curious:

How can it BE competition if there IS no competition?

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/13/2015 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/13/2015 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/13/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Seems like what you are doing is more accurately described as enjoying the LACK of competition, just to be honest?

Competition is going against an opponent and trying your best to get the win. It's not any less or more competitive whether your opponent is the world's best at whatever you're playing or the world's worst or anywhere between - your goal is simply to get the W. That's competition to me.


When I play games, I want them to be fun. When I'm angry and frustrated, that's not having fun, and I'm angry and frustrated when I lose.

Who among us wants to be angry and frustrated? Not many people, I'd imagine. So if you can find a way to be less angry and frustrated, why would you not want to do it?

THAT is why when I play video games, I make sure I never lose. It's also why I wish WIS would put out a version of HD where you can play in your own world against only SimAI opponents. It probably won't happen, but I'd be thrilled if it did.

But, and believe me, I'm really not being hostile here I'm just genuinely curious:

How can it BE competition if there IS no competition?

I'm still trying to get the W, even if that is an all-but-done deal before it begins.

Plus when it comes to sports video games,  I have a lot of fun racking up stats and seeing what those stats look like as the season progresses.

I guess the bottom line on me and sports games is this:

I'd rather be a giant fish in a really tiny pond than be just another slightly bigger than average fish in a regular lake. You get the picture.

I mean, um.

I mean, my point of view is just about the exact opposite of yours?  I mean...

You've disoriented me.  I'm not mad at you.  I really oughta be, but I'm just, like, not.  Do whatcha like.  Bra-*******-vo.

Or a fish in a pond full of fishing lures with no hooks on them.

Posted by bistiza on 3/13/2015 7:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by teamvip on 3/12/2015 10:34:00 PM (view original):
Dude, rigging games so that you win every time and wanting to ensure victory by playing opponents of the lowest caliber is basically the antithesis of being, "competitive."  Everybody hates to lose.

I disagree. While no one (that I know of) enjoys losing, not everyone *hates* to lose, and certainly not the the extent that I do. There is a grand canyon of difference between most people's dislike of losing and my absolute and total hate of it.

This is WHY I "rig" video games so I don't have to lose. If you hated losing even half as much as I do, then you'd probably understand.

You're overly empathetic yet you assume that there is a "grand canyon" of difference between your hatred of losing and others?  Additionally, you assume that if I somehow hated losing "half as much" as you, then I would understand the need to reduce the level of difficulty of my opponents to near invisible levels.  On top of this, you mention that this burning flame of yours only applies to sports and video games.  You're perfectly content to lose at cards or other games with family members etc.  I mean...what?  

Most people that claim to be uniquely competitive - such that their aversion to losing is a "grand canyon" of difference from that of normal people - are not typically selective about the activities to which this applies.  As pkoopman discussed, many people claim that they're "super competitive" when in reality, they just can't handle losing.  And there absolutely IS a difference between the two.  Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant...these dudes are uniquely competitive.  Their drive to WIN always pushed them to train obsessively and push themselves to levels that were legendary even amongst their elite counterparts.  If they simply wanted to "win" all the time, they could have just joined a local rec league and never lost a game for 30 years.

I find it interesting that you (bistiza) were a semi-pro bowler.  That's pretty cool.  You said it was frustrating that you often lost to pros in tournaments etc. but occasionally you would win.  I would venture to say that that's pretty impressive.  It's definitely frustrating to lose to superior competitors but when you win - I mean - that feels great.  Has to feel better than beating a scrub.  You couldn't possibly feel the same satisfaction beating a 10 year-old in the next lane to you as you did on the occasions you would beat a pro.

I was a basketball player in HS but I played tennis too because it got me outta class, my friends played, and 'cuz I made the team.  We won state my senior year but I was like the #6 player on our team (aka not because of me at all).  We played in one tournament where, somehow, I upset two higher seeds than me and wound up playing the #1 seed kid who was ranked like the #99 HS player in the country.  That guy worked me so hard.  It was amazing to watch him kick my a**.  But I relished the opportunity and managed to get a point off of him.  That felt way better to me than just smoking some scrub because the only thing that feels "good" about winning (and competing) to me is knowing that I accomplished something of at least moderate difficulty.  

I dunno...it's kinda beating a dead horse at this point and I'm pretty sure we won't ever see eye-to-eye on it.  To clarify, I don't "care" that this is your opinion.  I think that's fine.  But, in a debate about what constitutes competition I feel that I have to champion the other side.  The side that says winning over opponents who couldn't beat you is not being competitive.  It is, in fact, the opposite.  

Posted by teamvip on 3/13/2015 10:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/13/2015 7:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by teamvip on 3/12/2015 10:34:00 PM (view original):
Dude, rigging games so that you win every time and wanting to ensure victory by playing opponents of the lowest caliber is basically the antithesis of being, "competitive."  Everybody hates to lose.

I disagree. While no one (that I know of) enjoys losing, not everyone *hates* to lose, and certainly not the the extent that I do. There is a grand canyon of difference between most people's dislike of losing and my absolute and total hate of it.

This is WHY I "rig" video games so I don't have to lose. If you hated losing even half as much as I do, then you'd probably understand.

You're overly empathetic yet you assume that there is a "grand canyon" of difference between your hatred of losing and others?  Additionally, you assume that if I somehow hated losing "half as much" as you, then I would understand the need to reduce the level of difficulty of my opponents to near invisible levels.  On top of this, you mention that this burning flame of yours only applies to sports and video games.  You're perfectly content to lose at cards or other games with family members etc.  I mean...what?  

Most people that claim to be uniquely competitive - such that their aversion to losing is a "grand canyon" of difference from that of normal people - are not typically selective about the activities to which this applies.  As pkoopman discussed, many people claim that they're "super competitive" when in reality, they just can't handle losing.  And there absolutely IS a difference between the two.  Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant...these dudes are uniquely competitive.  Their drive to WIN always pushed them to train obsessively and push themselves to levels that were legendary even amongst their elite counterparts.  If they simply wanted to "win" all the time, they could have just joined a local rec league and never lost a game for 30 years.

I find it interesting that you (bistiza) were a semi-pro bowler.  That's pretty cool.  You said it was frustrating that you often lost to pros in tournaments etc. but occasionally you would win.  I would venture to say that that's pretty impressive.  It's definitely frustrating to lose to superior competitors but when you win - I mean - that feels great.  Has to feel better than beating a scrub.  You couldn't possibly feel the same satisfaction beating a 10 year-old in the next lane to you as you did on the occasions you would beat a pro.

I was a basketball player in HS but I played tennis too because it got me outta class, my friends played, and 'cuz I made the team.  We won state my senior year but I was like the #6 player on our team (aka not because of me at all).  We played in one tournament where, somehow, I upset two higher seeds than me and wound up playing the #1 seed kid who was ranked like the #99 HS player in the country.  That guy worked me so hard.  It was amazing to watch him kick my a**.  But I relished the opportunity and managed to get a point off of him.  That felt way better to me than just smoking some scrub because the only thing that feels "good" about winning (and competing) to me is knowing that I accomplished something of at least moderate difficulty.  

I dunno...it's kinda beating a dead horse at this point and I'm pretty sure we won't ever see eye-to-eye on it.  To clarify, I don't "care" that this is your opinion.  I think that's fine.  But, in a debate about what constitutes competition I feel that I have to champion the other side.  The side that says winning over opponents who couldn't beat you is not being competitive.  It is, in fact, the opposite.  

I appreciate the comments about my bowling, but really, it was only impressive in league play, where I was always one of the best bowlers. The occasional times I was able to beat pro bowlers were when I was rolling good AND they either had bad luck or made a mistake. Even a great game can be a loser if the other guy isn't missing either.

I get your point about the 10-year-old, but that's going too far for the comparison. From my perspective, I'd much rather help my team to a league championship than go around losing to the pros. Yeah, that was an awesome experience for a little while, and I learned from it, but it was too much losing to be fun for me. It did teach me to be a bit more humble in my local leagues, though - just because everyone thought I was an amazing bowler there because I had the top average in the league didn't mean squat when I tried to go against the real pros. 

I suppose it is no different here. Perhaps I should work to learn more from those who are the equivalent of HD pros to my semi-pro (if I'm even that here).

As Qui Gon Jin said to Jar Jar Binks...

"There's always a bigger fish."