Can you teach competitiveness.? (Page 2)

Nothing in this wonderful old world is more competitive than chess.

I teach chess to little kids.  Once they've learned the basic rules and moves, they do need to learn to "compete". They need to learn to try to beat their opponent and learn to accept defeat, learn from their mistakes, and move on. 

You can't get better at chess unless you're playing at a level in which you are winning roughly half the time and losing half the time.  Actually, winning a bit more than half the time and then moving up the ranks until you find your level.

Having said that, it's true that each kid needs to be supported as to where chess fits into their life.  For a few, it is life. For most, a great pass time.

This is such a good explanation! I think that is one important definition of competitive - having a strong desire to compete or to succeed, and that's worth encouraging.  Just like with any behavior you want to instill in your kids, let it be known that success (of any definition) is desired.    But don't forget the important lesson about being a good loser and good winner.

I think in time that people will end up finding their own level.  You can see siblings that, while raised by the same parent (although maybe not always the same way) will exhibit different levels of competitiveness.    Hopefully by then they will have learned the lesson that you should do your best, but if you're not the "winner" that's okay too. 

Much too broad for what?

And which dimension of personality do you think they missed?

No, I don't think there's a 17th. If there is a dimension that is overlooked, then the number of types would be a multiple of that dimension, not a single addition.

I don't know. That's what I'm wondering.

Yes, the dimensions are continuums but we aren't talking about the degree to which someone exhibits a type (or archetypes). We're talking about # of types.

For example, within the dimension of communication, they have identified concrete or abstract communication.  Then there is the other dimension - action. Utilitarian or cooperative? So now you have:

• Concrete utilitarian
• Concrete cooperative
• Abstract utilitarian
• Abstract cooperative

Throw in another dimension and how many temperaments do you now have? And is it just one dimension that is overlooked? Whatever the answer, it would not yield a single (1) type. It would be a factored number, not a single number (1). So, mathematically speaking, it would be impossible to have just 1 more type, since the types are multiples of the temperaments. 

Since we're dealing with a continuum, the obvious answer is no. There is no "totally" abstract. And that's not the issue. We're talking about dimensions and the dynamics that result in observable behavioral preferences.

Are there other ways of communicating beside abstract or concretely, that you are aware of? Perhaps there are (I'm certainly no expert). Perhaps you are aware of 2 (or more) other types of communication that the behavioralists have not identified. Let's say this is the case. What you would have is a factored number of types as a result of these 2 newly identified types - you would not have just 2 new personality types. Simple math.

er - no reliving of former glory - nice napkin theory but off target.

Well, I DID click to look inside, but nuttin' happened.  

The 'reliving the glory days' thought passed through my thoughts too...

It's the age range here that, for lack of a better phrase, bugs me.  These kids are SIX.  they are in FIRST GRADE. they have their whole lives to be competitive ... why not just let them have some freaking fun ?

I honestly think competitivness cannot be taught -- it's a personality trait.  It can be encouraged or discouraged, but it seems to me - anecdotally, at least - that someone is or is not competitive.

"I want my kids to enjoy sports but to learn that you need to be competitive - to show that they care and compete!- I think there is so much to learn from these environments..not just the competitive atmosphere but I believe without being 100% committed and being a willing doormat they are missing out."

100% committed to WHAT? tball? they are children. how does not being a hyper focused as a second grader = doormat?

I went to high school with a girl who was (unlike me ) athetically gifted. every sport she picked up --- swimming, lacrosse --- she was GOOD.  her dad came to lax practices and yelled at her. he came to games and yelled at her. she got a scholarship for lax ... and was so burnt out by the end of high school that she didn't go.

give your kids time to be kids, please.  encourage, support, cheer on... but push too hard now and I promise you that they will push back

It's a nice question.  I think I've decided that you can't teach children to be competitive - but you can guide and develop their competitive instinct.

A child who appears not to be competitive isn't neccessarily so.  Perhaps they don't think they can win so pretend they don't care.  Perhaps they don't like the activity they're participating in.  Perhaps they don't have the discipline in this instant gratification world to know the satisfaction that comes from something difficult to do.  But (and it's an important 'but') perhaps they just aren't competitive and they need to know that that's cool too.

One of my daughter's is overtly competitive but takes too much joy from things she shouldn't (beating her sister half her age in a foot race!) so I'm trying to help her guide that competitive spirit into something more valuable to her. 

She's also a terrible loser - but this is such a cool opportunity - if she loses a foot race with a friend or gets behind in her gymnastics compared to a friend she has a tendancy to give up and sulk.   It's been beautiful seeing her slowly harness this emotion into determination and a will to do better next time.  Incidentally, I've never told her she's winning, won, losing or lost - she knows (or at least thinks she knows) for herself so we just have long chats about how she's feeling about it and what she's going to do next.

I was six and my sister was eight when we got our first ponies.  The first thing my dad did was sit us down and explain that they were not his ponies, but ours, and as such we were responsible for feeding, watering and cleaning corrals.  We were told that the first time he saw that the ponies went without food or water, we would go without food and water for the same time frame.  The second time it happened he would sell them.   We knew he meant it and we never made that mistake.  We also had goats that we showed in 4-H and the same rule applied.  My parents also never learned to milk them and they had to be milked twice a day.  If I wanted to spend the night at a friends house, I had to arrange it with my sister that she would cover my chores and vice versa.  My parents never took care of our animals from the very first day. 

We quickly began showing our ponies and there was a definate difference between my sister and I when it came to being competitive.  She was "in it to win it" from the very beginning.  Me, I was all about the process, enjoying the moment and the work it took to get there.  If I won, that was pure icing on the cake.  If my sister didn't win, she was very hard on herself and what she could do better.  I was lucky because my dad and mom supported us in everything we wanted to do without being "that parent".

I remember some horse show parents just screaming at their kids across the arena and they were so young, it was sad.  They also bought their kids push button horses and the kid never learned how to actually "ride" a horse.  These kids all dropped out in their teen years when the competition got tougher. 

My dad was a cop and didn't make the money some of these parents did, so we often got horses that had problems and we spent months training the problems out of them and I traded stall cleaning for lessons.  At horse shows, my dad was in the truck sleeping half the time because he had worked graveyard and didn't get any sleep before we left in the AM.  He was there if we needed him, but not because he needed us to win.