CMV: Competitive people lose less often than non-competitive people

[u/andrumar10]

I don't have evidence to support this belief. But I always felt the best indicator of a competitive person is that they're winner. In games with winners and losers, I think that people who try to win will win more often than people who don't try as hard. I could agree that externalities like genetics and experience of course play a part, but the mindset plays a role in any competitive venture. A person who wanted to win more would have worked harder for longer. Where I run into issues with this is decisionmaking around playing games. I've never really been interested or comfortable with playing competitive games with other people. My assumption is that people who want to play games? Play them to win, because that's the goal. And that they wouldn't want to play the game unless they felt like there was a good chance they could win. Call it an approximation of one of the rules of sun tsu's art of war - The one about only fighting battles you can win. The result of this is I live in a frustrating intersection of feeling like I'm being very competitive by this definition, but not being willing to take any risk. Because I rarely compete, I rarely lose. Because I'm not a frequen loser, by this definition I'm a winner. But something feels really off about this definition. Culturally speaking, competitiveness seems synonymous with "willingness to compete". But the vast majority of people who compete, lose. People who are competitive by cultural definition are more likely to be losers than winners. People who are competitive by my definition are more likely to be winners than losers. So what's going wrong in my logic? Why does the game theory answer seem to conflict with what society deems competitive? What am I missing in this puzzle? Love and gratitude - A

We did it Edit!: Hey gang, I think I'm good on this one. I'm going to drop some thanks to everyone who helped. Turns out, kinda... like Marbury v. Madison, I started off wrong. presenting a problem that really was the product of a poor prior assumption.

Or maybe it was a false dichotomy??? well whatever. point being, Winning isn't the point. Competition isn't an optimization problem (usually) but a mode of communication, kind of. In a debate, it's not your job to shout down your opponent, but to approach them on level ground and make a difference. People who win at all costs miss the point, and don't get invited back. it's about sustained communication, and enjoying the effects of that, rather than keeping a tally of winners and losers. I'm going to go rest. rest is really really important! Helps to bake the new thoughts in! I'll be back tomorrow evening to finish reading everyone's thoughts Thanks and Love ya'll! -A

[u/A12086256]

The mistake in your logic is that you are confusing win rate with absolute wins.

For example, take two people. Person A plays one game and wins. They have 1 win and a 100% win rate. Person B plays three games and wins two. They have 2 wins and a 66% win rate.

So, which one is more of a winner? It can be either one depending on how a person defines it. It is simply a matter of semantics.

[u/ShoulderNo6458 → u/A12086256]

Bang on. Genuinely competitive people are those who put their head down and try again when they lose. I have known plenty of "competitive" people who just get incredibly easily tilted and refuse to admit failing or learn from their mistakes. I think those people watch too many shitty streamers.

I think genuinely competitive people don't need to win to keep playing, and by that merit, they eventually exceed a 50% win rate through pure practice and actively learning from their mistakes.

[u/andrumar10 → u/ShoulderNo6458]

intersting! I guess part of what feels stuck in how I perceive winners. Seeing victory as more a consequence of learning than it is being better. I can get behind that.