On 16 Oct 1995, Barry Mallis wrote:
> Makes sense, Jesse. Interesting thoughts. I wonder, though.
>
> You connect jargon use with competition in business. Yes, I see that
> everywhere. Further, you typed that as a function of business, jargon
> "will not be weeded out until [business] becomes less competitive".
>
> While not wishing to pick up the thread about competition, I am provoked
> to think hard about your statement, Jesse. Won't human ingenuity always
> provide a medium for competition? Are you thinking about a specific kind
> of competition, like destructive or insidious (whatever that means) or
> enslaving or what-have-you?
I do not mean that competition is inherently good or bad. I mean that
there is a connection between competition and using new langauge. My
examples demonstrate how this notion is present in several levels of
society.
I see this, but do not have hard evidence. My opinion here is based on my
observation of people in many situations. For example, every time I work
with a government employee, I get a list of acronyms and document numbers.
"The 940 must be filed before the 1040 and SE except for 1099's" is jargon
accountants might use. I attended a Job Analysis seminar put on by the U.
S. Air Force. It was great! However, the first twenty minutes was spent
defining the acronyms they used for the next two hours. It was difficult
to listen and pay attention. I ended up with a headache and crossed eyes.
I believe in competetition, as long as fair play, ethics, and a spirit of
community are present. I worked as a nursing home administrator. That
environment is heavily regulated and fiercely competitive plus families
are hurting when they first come. The competition was negative and
costly. I venture to say that is true with any nursing home and takes a
great amount of energy to maintain a pleasant experience for anyone.
Doctors are not taught to be team players. Regulators are only looking
for errors and it seems they enjoy "catching the rats." Of course, the
"rats" are usually honest people trying to make a living and get by.
And so on.
> If I live in a happy vale with others who have shirked competition as we
> "know" and love it today, won't there still be some interaction among us
> residents which can fall under the shadow of competition? I develop an
> idea for recycling which is accepted as the most advanced available. As a
> result, someone else, later, develops a variation which increases
> efficiency. Someone else (me?) goes another turn of the improvement
> wheel. All very benign, all to the public and personal good.
> Competition? In a sense, no?
>
> I'm moving toward a very paradoxical definition of competing. OK, maybe
> I've crossed the boundary into cooperation or cooperative endeavors fueled
> by positive thinking about humanity's place in the ecosystem. That makes
> me wonder if Webster's "rivalry" can be transformed, if the hard edges of
> securing someone's business over the attempts of another to secure it can
> be changed, mutated?
What is wrong with cooperation? We are no longer in the dark ages. We do
not require the same skills that we are defending. Executive politics are
probably necessary. I believe ethics are sorely needed and should be
taught in every setting. I think that some things are just plain wrong.
No religion or government needs to explain this.
{snip}
Nattering on to a new star.
-- Jesse W. White jwhite@comp.uark.edu