[tempfs]

Everything in this country, in this life, is a competition. One big zero-sum game.

It starts in high school. Social status, academics, athletics, and now social media followers and likes.

I am very glad that when I was in high school, social media wasn't really a thing yet. I could leave it all at school. Just go home and read, play video games or go outside. Most of my mistakes were limited to the memories of those people who witnessed them first hand.

Kids today are under near constant competition with each other and it takes a toll.

At some point, I hope, without some massive existential crisis serving as the impetuous we can collectively come to the understanding that our technology has vastly outpaced our morality. I hope that the prevailing social norm becomes cooperation over competition and the desire to lift others up instead of stepping on them for your own personal gain.

[wolverine876]

> One big zero-sum game.

Not relationships, marriage, work, or community. Even business is rarely zero sum, or the economy wouldn't grow. Generally speaking, business is win-win deals.

[WalterSear]

> Not relationships, marriage, work, or community

I don't understand how you could think any of this.

Relationships? They are absolutely a competition for the young: both platonic and romantic, but especially romantic. Nothing more competitive.

Work? Work is absolutely a competition, for young and old alike.

Community? What else do you think teens are seeking out online?

[ehvatum]

> I don't understand how you could think any of this.

If life, community, industry, love, and community were a zero-sum game, a do-nothing loner would be at parity with a dynamic entrepreneur who has a family and a network of colleagues essential to achieving their shared goals.

Particularly in these times of politically weaponized philosophy, it is important to teach children values that are not nihilistic trash.

Exceedingly difficult goals are the most worthy because they require growth. That is to say, expect the world to be grossly unfair, and build strength, friendships, industry, community so that you can construct and defend the fairness you desire. There are an endless number of zero-sum thieves out there who never learned to thrive except by taking from their betters, and you win against them by being better.

[noisy_boy]

Relationships are a huge competition in an atomic family type situation - children competing with spouses for time, spouse/kids competing with grandparents, family competing with friends... and god forbid if you have a family member with medical needs. When time was collective because of extended families, this stress got spread out and not as much noticeable but with the shrinked family unit, this is only going to get worse.

[wolverine876]

> Relationships are a huge competition in an atomic family type situation - children competing with spouses for time, spouse/kids competing with grandparents, family competing with friends... and god forbid if you have a family member with medical needs.

Wow, I have never experienced competition in that situation. There are scarce resources at times, but that doesn't mean they are distributed by competition. IME, usually people work together toward the greatest good for the family. They love each other and want each other to thrive, and would generally rather sacrifice themselves than see a loved one sacrifice for them. That good faith is never in question.

[noisy_boy]

The question is not of good faith or the competition being overt or malicious type etc. Time is finite - if you are spending on one side, you can't be sending on the remaining sides. Usually the people in your life realize it and adjust for the priority/greater good and so yes, they will willingly sacrifice in that spirit. But the relationships themselves are emotionally competing - if you have, e.g., to choose between relocating for the future of your kids and your ailing parents, those duties are competing, even though the recipients themselves may not be - you will have to choose.

[WalterSear]

I was thinking about the establishment of peer groups and identity in teens, but you are right that there are other forms of relationship competition.

[wolverine876]

Your experience with relationships, work, and community are different than mine. There's some competition, of course, but relationships, romantic and platonic, IME mostly rely on factors that have little to do with third parties; their success depends on the two people involved - I find that's true even for romantic, monogamous relationships with 3 or more parties as options. Most of my time at work is not spent competing, but cooperating and helping each other.

Mostly, people seem to love to argue about nihilism to some philosophical extreme, but let's separate that from real life.

> Community? What else do you think teens are seeking out online?

Does that mean community is or is not competitive? HN is a community but isn't much competitive.

[s1artibartfast]

They are objecting to the zero-sum aspect, not the competition.

IF you need to make your married partner feel worse to make yourself happier, you are absolutely doing it wrong.

[WalterSear]

This is just silly. Teens aren't married. Competition for relationships is absolutely a thing.

[s1artibartfast]

Competition for partners is a thing but still not zero sum. The number of people in relationships is not fixed. You can increase the sum by starting a relationship that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Satisfaction you get out of it is obviously not zero sum as well.

If this is how teens think, it is no wonder they are miserable. Happiness is not zero sum, it can be created. In fact, it must be created

[geranim0]

It's a competition if you view it as a competition. Yes, it does take time and effort to shift the way you view things, but totally worth it.

[CalRobert]

We've made it in to a competition by creating false scarcities of necessities (mostly housing). If you want a home, you need to be better than your peers.

[reustle]

I agree, but how much time does it take to realize this as an adult? How about as a teenager?

[onesafari]

Status games are multiplayer, zero-sum, hierarchical, judged socially. Get grades, applause, titles now — emptiness later. Natural games are single player, positive-sum, internal, judged by nature/markets.

Seek wealth, not money or status. Wealth is having assets that earn while you sleep. Money is how we transfer time and wealth. Status is your place in the social hierarchy.

Understand that ethical wealth creation is possible. If you secretly despise wealth, it will elude you.

Ignore people playing status games. They gain status by attacking people playing wealth creation games.

(from Naval)

[ativzzz]

I don't know what kind of sterile environment you'd have to live in to play mostly "natural games", and certainly any teenager in any social setting (school) is playing a multiplayer game. Hell almost all humans are playing multiplayer games. Fundamentally, we are social creatures, despite what high philosophy may say

you've edited your post a couple of times so this was a reply to your earlier edit about natural/status games