by Psyber » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:17 pm
To be politically correct, we are supposed to be "de-emphasising" competitiveness - that is training aspiration, achievement, and excellence out of our children, along with its negative aspects [belittling behaviour towards others, cruelty, and brutality] - so those who are not as good at popular activities don't feel bad. The theory says that they can learn not to value competitiveness now, and change to valuing it later in life when it becomes a life skill.
I don't see why we have to do this. Why can't we reward excellence and aspiration, while stressing that we can't all be good at the same things and each can achieve in their own way. For example, I remember fondly a schoolmate the one year I did woodwork. I was good at the academic aspects of the course and lousy at the practical, and he was an artist with the tools but struggled to understand plans and diagrams. We respected and helped each other - although in those days were weren't supposed to.
Just to be quite clear - I don't see anything wrong in posting scores and knowing who won at sport - or who got things right at school.
Last edited by
Psyber on Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!