Competition





According to my AP U.S. History teacher, the Dark Ages were nothing compared to 18th-century colonialism. The way he puts it, colonialism was not just the Big Bad Wolf but also all the piggies he ate for breakfast. But not to panic! Dark times bred extraordinary measures. And swashbuckling founding fathers, with a new breed of colonialism. Fascinating.

But when my teacher starts talking about society today, during what's supposed to be an impassioned colonial history lesson, it gets interesting. He's talking about mercantilism, which was the economic theory and policy that governed the colonial world (and which you've probably learned about). Mercantilism was designed to maximize exports and minimize imports for an economy.



“They believed that there were limited resources of gold and silver in the world, which created intense competition," my teacher said, drawing two lumps on the white board to represent gold and silver.



I tried not to burst out laughing. Why is he talking in the past tense? This is exactly what kids are taught in the 21st century! We see colonialists as simple-minded with their economic theories, but even in a capitalist world, school is still very mercantilist:



• Gold and silver -> limited resources like admission to elite colleges, competitions, rankings, selective summer camps, private school seats, scholarships, internships, jobs, Instagram followers

• Gold and silver -> money and power *

• Intense competition -> mental health issues, comparison, kindergarten SAT prep

• “We live in a society that encourages competition at demonstrably vicious levels, and sets a hard and accountable yardstick for judging who wins…competition centers not on making work, but on collecting the symbols of acceptance and approval of that work” (From Art & Fear by David Bayles and Ted Orland)



Under mercantilism, every bit of a country's soil has to be utilized for agriculture, mining, or manufacturing. Every piece of our time (especially for kids growing up) is occupied by doing something useful or "productive."

Under mercantilism, exports of gold and silver are prohibited. Learning to collaborate should be important for us to learn as human beings. But an environment with limited gold and silver is not designed to reward collaboration. We shouldn't give away our best learnings or work with others, because it's implicitly a zero-sum game. We should “colonize” other countries to take their resources. This doesn't mean that we're completely self-serving, but when it comes to competition we're not likely to help competitors.



It took me a really long time to realize that there aren't limited resources in the world: someone else's success doesn't detract from my own. Mercantilism at its core is an economic fallacy. Yet it's also true that an Ivy League admission rate is a limited resource (you get in or you don't.) So understanding the fallacy of mercantilism also means recognizing that we care about the wrong things. It's like valuing “gold and silver," which sound so silly in today's terms. Hopefully the metrics we fight over today will also seem silly to AP U.S. History teachers 100 years in the future.



Comparison



Competition often breeds parity and mediocrity. I'm reminded of this quote that Henry Kissinger reportedly said about his time at Harvard: the battles were so fierce because the stakes were so small. Chasing laurels is exhausting because you quickly realize that there isn't much meaning behind "winning." it's easiest to burn out when you don't know where you're going or why you're working so hard.

But it seems like competition in the vein of mercantilism does have a purpose; it seems to fuel athletes, at least, to be “the greatest." (A lot of athletes are competing against themselves, but in news interviews it's still about winning.) Competition seems closely related to comparison. Paul Graham writes: “[For] people whose work is to invent or discover things [...] there's no way for them to do the best they can, because there's no limit to what they could do. The closest you can come is to compare yourself to other people." Competition is a measuring stick for us, often to determine if we're good enough.



When it comes to competition, the most convincing argument I've read was actually a comment on Reddit (r/A2C):

The problem with trying to place yourself in some ranking is that you quickly realize you’re not at the top. […] You lost this race before the starting gun even sounded. Work hard to be good at the things you enjoy doing, but don’t work to be the best. No matter how hard you work there will always be someone better, and once you get near the top, you will find people who are both better at your subject and have a more full and meaningful life. [...]



Make your life meaningful in other ways. Go and experience things with your friends, talk to your parents, joke around with siblings, explore new places, try new foods, make mistakes and learn from them, learn a language or five, take up painting, try salsa dancing, make a cake, give everyone a Christmas card, reach out to the person who needs a friend right now. Grades, essays, university, jobs, rankings – none of this is real. People are real, and you’ll be much happier in life with close connections and supportive communities. You are not replaceable to your family and friends.



You are not replaceable to your family and friends, while you are replaceable to anyone/anything that only cares about gold and silver. I've never really considered myself ambitious, but if I have any remaining ambition, this really drains it. It's a great feeling.







*"We live in a civilization in which the primary currencies are money and power […] This is a very simple and fragile system compared to the Earth’s ecosystems, where myriads of “currencies” are exchanged among processes to create hugely complex systems of inputs and outputs with feedback systems"

(From an essay in the MIT Media Lab Journal of Design and Science. I don't really want to quote the article, but I read it before Ito's resignation and his idea is interesting)