failure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

philosophy -> failure (11/27/2008 10:00:23 AM)

In recent threads dealing with subjects as diverse as gun control and monetary policy, one of the more articulate viewpoints appears to support a form of social Darwinism. This is what railing against 'rewarding failure' actually means. Society, in a sense, has shielded humans from the full consequences of their actions (so the theory goes), by removing that shield then humans learn to behave better and many of todays problems will eventually disappear.
This viewpoint appears to me to see society as a series of competitive dynamics. Essentially a series of contests which create winners and losers........by not helping the losers mitigate the effects of losing, society would more firmly entrence the qualities of the winners. Good eh?
Maybe not........because if we have competition as the only dynamic then there always have to be losers.......even among a group of winners. Imagine if someone said, right the NFL could do with getting rid of its poor teams, so every time a team loses it's removed from the roster. The inevitable end result of that is clearly absurd. Just the one team left with no-one to play with. Competition, by itself, isn't enough. We have to have cooperation as well. At one point we have to not punish failure. At one point we have to shield humans from the effect of failure or there's no game anymore. This is not to say that we have to shield ourselves from failure all the time......that's as absurd as its opposite. So how do we draw the line? Where's the balance point?



Termyn8or -> RE: failure (11/27/2008 10:13:43 AM)

Impossible to answer of course. However I tend to think that this rewarding failure which has been referred to again and again is a self defeating policy. That is eventually we won't be able to afford those shields. That will be the turning point in human history.

T



hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: failure (11/27/2008 10:22:22 AM)

Eliminating the loosers does indeed bring about a point of diminishing returns, Phil.  And yes, there have to be some compromises and cooperation along the way, or you (general) find that there is nothing left to compete For.  That being said, there is an inherant weakness in Not Allowing the concept of Failure - of being the looser - of not quite making the mark, and constantly lowering the standards to accomodate the least common denominator.
 
Humanity Thrives when presented with Challenges.  If we remove the challenge so that the weakest - the least able - aren't Potentially offended, or feel like they're "less" than the rest of humanity/society (which, being the Least able, they ARE less - that's what being LEAST means) - then in the long view we all suffer for it.  There ceases to be any sort of challenge for the Most able, and apathy ensues.  I personally see a huge difference between Punishing failure (ie, removing them from the playing field) and a refusal to Reward failure by acting as though they did not, in fact, Fail to meet their desired goal. 
 
Where's the balance?  That's difficult, at best, to determine.  Returning to a previous standard - which Worked - instead of the current standard (which patently does Not work) would be a good start.  That previous standard was allowing people to fail or suceed on their own merit, starting as children in grade school.  Can't hack the rigors of being on the team, then you don't make the team - instead of this horseshit of "ooooh, they'll feel bad about themselves and left out, so we've got to make a place for them even if they aren't suited to it and can't hack it."  Can't make a passing grade - either because you lack the inherant intelligence to grasp the subject matter, or because you're to lazy to put forth the effort?  Guess you're gonna stay back a grade - or 3 or 4 - until you do better - the consequence of social awkardness because you're so much older than those around you who are leaving you standing in the dust should prove (as it used to) a goad to work harder in order to keep up.  When you get used to the idea as a child that life is NOT always easy, you're NOT going to be given the go ahead even if you can't measure up, you're NOT always going to get a trophy even though you are patently not measuring up - then accepting that life isn't gonna always be handed to you is much easier to swallow, and a lot less frustration and depression ensue later on.
 
This is a cause and effect universe - yet we've ceased to teach the newer members of our society that sometimes the Effect....... the consequences.... are less than pleasant, feel good, pat yourself on the back and get a trophy anyway kinda stuff.



celticlord2112 -> RE: failure (11/27/2008 10:24:33 AM)

quote:

Maybe not........because if we have competition as the only dynamic then there always have to be losers.......even among a group of winners. Imagine if someone said, right the NFL could do with getting rid of its poor teams, so every time a team loses it's removed from the roster. The inevitable end result of that is clearly absurd. Just the one team left with no-one to play with. Competition, by itself, isn't enough. We have to have cooperation as well. At one point we have to not punish failure. At one point we have to shield humans from the effect of failure or there's no game anymore. This is not to say that we have to shield ourselves from failure all the time......that's as absurd as its opposite. So how do we draw the line? Where's the balance point?

We don't draw the line, because there is no line to draw, nor is there a balance point.

Your thesis fails because it necessarily postulates an endpoint that does not exist, as well as mandating the wrong consequence--extinction.  Competition is a perpetual dynamic, and the ultimate consequence is not extinction but adaptation.  Even in the NFL, we see this--teams that lose consistently get new managers, new players, et cetera, until they manage to win.  The cycle is perpetual, extending not just from game to game but from season to season.

If NFL teams were truly shielded from failure, the teams that lose would continue to lose, not just game to game but season to season.  Given that it is rare for teams in any sport to go winless across an entire season, or to perpetually post losing records (yes, the Houston Texans are an anomaly in this regard, but Houston sports in general tend to operate on a different plane of existence! [8D]), it is clear that NFL teams--and more importantly, NFL players and coaches--are not shielded from failure.

Nor does allowing those who fail within society to feel the full force of their failure amount to extinction.  We do not execute those who fail; we fire them, we compel them to begin anew, but we do not extinguish them.  If they refuse to adapt, if they refuse to learn from their failures, extinction is the likely outcome, but only those who will not alter their ways face extinction. 

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome, how much madness is there in subsidizing the insistence upon that insanity?

Competition works at both micro and macro levels because it forces adaptation, which is a precursor to growth.  A lack of competition results in stagnation, which is a precursor to death.

All life has two modes--growth and death.  I'll take the first one any day!



meatcleaver -> RE: failure (11/27/2008 12:30:10 PM)

People who advocate social Darwinism, don't understand Darwinism. If one uses their terms, then the Russian and French revolutions were Darwinism at work. Hey, even theft and mugging is social Darwinism. It still has little to do with Darwinism. People who use social Darwinism seem to be I'm all right Jack people but they might not end up all right if they are taken at their word.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: failure (11/27/2008 5:22:42 PM)

The reason it works, is because the only way anyone can stay top dog is if they continue to make the right choices. Look at the history of companies, companies that were huge are non-existent. Companies that didn't exist when I was in high school are worth more than GE. Why does it work, it works for several reasons.

1. Humans die, which translates into good leadership, is not constant, thus an excellent company upon transfer of leadership, is really a whole new company. This give opportunity for the ambitious to take advantage and do it better cannibalizing the corpse of a once great but dying company.

2. Human ego, people get arrogant and complacent once they get the top dog postion. Xerox for example gave away essentially the core of what would become windows. They were to big and bloated in what they thought was important stuff. Xerox while still around is not what it could have been.

3.Human laziness, what is the purpose of acquiring money, and power, if not to enjoy it.  Eventually, even the most initially ambitious person runs out of steam, and just is not willing to do as much as the person with less. They may use their power to try to supress the new guy but it rarely works, well outside of government intervention. Look at windows, it is dead tech. They can milk that a couple more times, then the OS, is off to the web, or linux is getting better all the time. Even microsoft can't stop the ambitious forever.

4. People just aren't capable of making the right choices all the time, and therefore will eventually screw up and give an opening for some other player to enter the field.

5. People want to compete, or enough do, so the onslaught of new young competitors will never stop, outside of unfair practices imposed on competition. Corporate grants, Corporate welfare, etc... only helped the entrenched dinosaurs they rarely help the guy in his garage compete.

6. People like buying from people they feel a connection to. Thus in any regional economy a start up selling the same product will have an advantage all things otherwise being equal by that fact alone.

From a corporate perspective, yeah, it should be darwinism full out. You could still have individual supports if you wanted that is another topic, but as far as business goes, there is zero value in saving GM for example. You are simply denying another opportunity, nothing more than blatant theft.




philosophy -> RE: failure (11/27/2008 9:26:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

From a corporate perspective, yeah, it should be darwinism full out. You could still have individual supports if you wanted that is another topic, but as far as business goes, there is zero value in saving GM for example. You are simply denying another opportunity, nothing more than blatant theft.




...actually i don't disagree with this as far as it goes. Thing is, corporate culture and social supports have become inextricably intertwined. i'm not saying this is a good thing, but i'm not sure we can arbitrarily say that what we do to one does not affect the other anymore...if indeed we ever could.



meatcleaver -> RE: failure (11/27/2008 9:41:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

The reason it works, is because the only way anyone can stay top dog is if they continue to make the right choices. Look at the history of companies, companies that were huge are non-existent. Companies that didn't exist when I was in high school are worth more than GE. Why does it work, it works for several reasons.

1. Humans die, which translates into good leadership, is not constant, thus an excellent company upon transfer of leadership, is really a whole new company. This give opportunity for the ambitious to take advantage and do it better cannibalizing the corpse of a once great but dying company.



Most societies, even the American society aren't as mobile as many of its citizens like to think. People in western democracies think that just because the personell in their governments change, they keep renewing their leadership. However, their establishments and political class, the power brokers in society, remain pretty constant. The would be political leaders in societies go through a rigorous test, not by the electorate but by the establishments, this has often been examined and written about, year after year in political faculties of our universities.

Most cultures eventually fail through their conservatism and are replaced by new cultures, this is not what social Darwinists think when they think of social Darwinism, they are really thinking about their own culture and darwinists are usually the conservatists that would contribute to the failure of a culture. ie. The Islamic fundementalists are an example of social Darwinists who have become increasingly conservative over the several hundred years of decline in Arab culture.



tweedydaddy -> RE: failure (11/28/2008 12:12:27 AM)

Failure and Success can be difficult to tell apart in some fields, in the UK a sportsman can become incredibly rich by falling flat on his face and never winning a damned thing but by being popular by vitrtue of never giving up.
I would advocate a third status, in a savage verbal attack on my Father, who had been in the construction industry as a contractor all his life and was still hardly able to find two pennies to rub together, I accused him of being an abject failure (God, do I wish I had never said that) He took it on the chin and oddly for an Irishman didn't lose his temper, he looked me in the eye and said "I wouldn't say I was a failure, I'd say I was a tryer." I would now choose to call anyone who has not got there, but not given up, a Tryer.
I would say you are only ever a real failure if you give up, and even then, it may just be that you have been swimming against the tide.
This is a bloody hard world and we all need all the help and compassion we can get, I would cut my tongue out before I would ever use the L word again.



Termyn8or -> RE: failure (11/28/2008 9:16:59 AM)

Did you ever wonder why the people who really run the world do run the world ? They think multi-generationally. Near everyone else is concerned with quarterly earnings, and when they die sometimes their best laid plans hit the ground before they do. Not with the rulers of the world. There is someone to take their place, effectively schooled in the matters that keep them on top. They build a financial empire for their progeny, and that progeny respects and appreciates that, and does everything they can to preserve their legacy.

They are truly superior to the rest of us at least in that respect. As most think about the here and now, the plan is working for them as it always has, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Sure there are new players in the game, but it doesn't matter as they have not the guile and intelligence to threaten their position.

And they got there without firing a shot.

In that way all the rest of us are failures. If you know how things really are, give credit where credit is due. They are not on top of the world for building a mousetrap, better or not. It takes a bit more than that. Most of us can't even comprehend how these people think. But the results are in, big old money is still in control so they must have done something right. They could buy and sell Bill Gates with pocket change.

I think that before we define failure and start pointing fingers, it would be a good idea to know what success is.

And know it is not exclusive to them. Through ways and means they tried to force the sale of Krupp (I think) in Germany but couldn't make it stick because nobody had enough money to buy it. Then there's that family in Texas called into a congressional inquest who flat out refused to enumerate all of their assets. Some, but very few have the moxie to stand up to pressures brought to bear with the force of government. These pressures are brought on by the true ruling class, who sees any one entity that becomes big enough as a potential problem, maybe even a threat.

Just having power seems to threaten power.

You don't understand the tools these people have at their disposal. It is they who pushed for unions which destroyed the auto industry here. It is they who brought unions to the cadmium mines in Serbia or whatever it's called, and they started a revolution. If Milesovic was their buddy the ethnic cleansing would have been called restoring order. That power of the media is also in their hands. Those two tools alone could enable one to take over the world but there is alot more.

I really have to give credit where credit is due. They are superior, it is that simple. Their intelligence, their thought process, their ability to stay on top, to keep their wealth despite all the havoc in the world (most of which they create) and their loyalty to their cause.

It takes alot, you don't think they learned all this by managing a Burger King do you ? I would be hard pressed to be able to argue that they don't deserve to be in control. As far as the US goes, they see the big picture and are beholden to no country. We get the short end of the stick sometimes, oh well. They care about us no more or less than any other country.

No matter the ire they may deserve, their accomplishments are indeed awesome (I still hate that word). Their envoys will continue to meet with Obama, and even if he was like a kid in a candy dtore, he's going to find out all that candy was made with salt instead of sugar. [now there's an interesting metaphor if I do say so myself]

So welcome fellow failures, we are not among the about a thousand people across the globe who have succeeded. Not that we were expected to, but the fact still remains.

And, in no way does that mean that we have no control over our own fate. They might control the conditions, but cannot directly control the fate of any one of us without effort. They won't bother. It doesn't matter to them.

T



stella41b -> RE: failure (11/28/2008 9:47:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweedydaddy

Failure and Success can be difficult to tell apart in some fields, in the UK a sportsman can become incredibly rich by falling flat on his face and never winning a damned thing but by being popular by vitrtue of never giving up.
I would advocate a third status, in a savage verbal attack on my Father, who had been in the construction industry as a contractor all his life and was still hardly able to find two pennies to rub together, I accused him of being an abject failure (God, do I wish I had never said that) He took it on the chin and oddly for an Irishman didn't lose his temper, he looked me in the eye and said "I wouldn't say I was a failure, I'd say I was a tryer." I would now choose to call anyone who has not got there, but not given up, a Tryer.
I would say you are only ever a real failure if you give up, and even then, it may just be that you have been swimming against the tide.
This is a bloody hard world and we all need all the help and compassion we can get, I would cut my tongue out before I would ever use the L word again.


Well said...



UncleNasty -> RE: failure (11/28/2008 10:14:44 AM)

An interesting thread.

And a quote:

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."
                                                                                                                                    Herbert Spencer

One handed Uncle Nasty



MzMia -> RE: failure (11/28/2008 9:27:56 PM)

Wonderful post T.
The powers that be always seem to make it.
It is the way our system is set up and I don't see
that changing any time soon.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: failure (11/28/2008 9:49:10 PM)

Need2useU: "6. People like buying from people they feel a connection to. Thus in any regional economy a start up selling the same product will have an advantage all things otherwise being equal by that fact alone."

That is why companies still have sales staff travel and get face time in rather than teleconferencing; to connect with people. Trading pictures of the kids goes a looooong way towards making a connection.



cpK69 -> RE: failure (11/29/2008 5:47:05 PM)

I’ve been about this topic a lot lately. While my thoughts aren't exactly concrete at this time, I am coming to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with letting failure happen. As a matter of fact, I am thinking it would be unbeneficial to prevent it.
 
However, I am seeing other issues relating to the subject. One being the idea that failing automatically makes someone a failure. I don’t believe that is accurate. Otherwise, I should have thrown in the towel at seven, when I failed to pass the second grade. Am I still a failure even though I passed the second time around?
 
Another thing, I can’t ignore the fact that I was under the impression I was sent to school to learn, but my teacher’s intention was to get me to memorize. Memorizing isn’t one of my strong points, so that didn’t pan out too well; but I did learn, just not so much of what they were trying to ‘teach’. I’m not seeing how the failure was mine.
 
I agree that a certain amount of competition is healthy, but it seems that we are forgetting that societies are teams. Because of that, regardless of how vaguely, we are all connected. Bashing the weakest link doesn’t seem very productive to me, especially if it’s only weakness is being different.
 
Kim



Real_Trouble -> RE: failure (11/29/2008 6:48:10 PM)

This all assumes that failure and success are not primarily a matter of luck.

I'd be careful with that assumption; it's quite possible all we'd be doing is doubling down on a random experiment if we tried to "eliminate" the losers in many cases.  After all, if you won as a result of what is essentially a coin flip, what does that say about you?

Not much.



cpK69 -> RE: failure (11/29/2008 7:46:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Trouble

This all assumes that failure and success are not primarily a matter of luck.


 
I'm confused; what "all assumes"?
 
Also, I don't see where you got the impression I was saying anything about eliminate the 'loosers'.
 
Where do you see a coin toss occurring in what I said?
 
Kim







Termyn8or -> RE: failure (11/29/2008 11:33:30 PM)

cpk, that is metaphor and analogy. Don't start a war over it.

T



NorthernGent -> RE: failure (11/30/2008 2:40:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

This is what railing against 'rewarding failure' actually means. Society, in a sense, has shielded humans from the full consequences of their actions (so the theory goes), by removing that shield then humans learn to behave better and many of todays problems will eventually disappear.



Flaw 1: "remove the shield and humans learn to behave better". Quite clearly, this is built on dubious foundations. Where are all of these self-regulating, virtuous human beings, devoid of the need for support? There is nothing out there to suggest that were the population left to its own devices, 'better' humans would rise out of the ashes. As with everything in life, there is a balance to be had; that balance is a compromise between self-sufficiency and support. Take a look at this board: people learn through their own experiences and complement this through the experience of others. That appears to be a constant in human nature, and any system must fit human behaviour.

Flaw 2: the second flaw is in the measure and judgement based on personal values. Who exactly are the acting judge and jury sitting in front of the defendants brought up to the dock? What is success? Someone who earns a small fortune? Someone who abides by the law for eternity? Someone who challenges the law and its foundations? Someone who opts out of society on the grounds of it being a consumer paradise? Someone who has all the material goods in the world? Someone who places great store in spiritual matters? Someone who raises a family and the children go on to be doctors? Someone who is pious and devotes his life to the church? Someone who devotes his life to charity? There is no objective measure of success: 400 years ago, success may have been measured by religious servitude among the vast majority of the population. The idea of that which a society should strive toward, is not constant; it follows thus the measure of success is not constant.

Were we to deem prosperity to be the measure of success, I would suggest there is no use in dividing people into successes and failures, and leaving the 'failures' to fend for themselves; I'd advocate a utilitarian approach that steers clear of judgement, and attempts to maxmise the number of people who contribute to the economy.

Here's a challenge: can anyone step forward with hand on heart and say you've never had support for which you were glad, for something that others may have labelled you a 'failure'?



pahunkboy -> RE: failure (11/30/2008 5:41:08 AM)

hmmm. 

maybe we should substitute "cock" for anything too big to fail.

each bail out is to pay homage to a BIG COCK!

for the cock is very VERY important, in fact, the cock is NECESSARY for all of civilization.... certainly Le cock is, well, too big to fail.


, just sayn   lol



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
2.734375E-02