personal ambition vs. competition?

[Flavus Aquila]

Unfortunately, genuine good-spirited competition is a rare and precious thing.
The higher the stakes, the greater the likelihood that someone is going to cheat or use some sort of unfair advantage.

Admittedly we probably operate in different circles, but I have seldom encountered underhanded competition.

I agree that higher stakes may contribute to more temptation to become over-involved to the point to compromise. However, I think the "stakes" are best measured in terms of subjective attachment, not in some objective way.
The little experience I have of underhanded competition has always been about some trifling, small thing... that someone blew out of proportion.
When the stakes are objectively high, my experience is that people take things more soberly and carefully.

Sometimes it is detrimental; other times competition is for the greater good. Sometimes it is good for the consumer or for the marketplace. I mean to comment on none these ends. What I'm saying is that for whatever reason and regardless of what ultimately comes of it, when they hurt, I hurt. I am speaking only of the immediate emotions following the victory / loss.

Some hurt is bad, some hurt is good.
If it will help someone to emerge more able, more resolved, and more humble/realistic - how could that be detrimental?

**I know it is a stupid analogy, but anyhow...** For a surgeon to help a patient, he must inevitably hurt that patient.
(Experience of reality, being the surgeon, by way of analogy).

 

[Tin Man]

I lack ambition. I'm more motivated by stuff that interests me rather than accomplishment.

As for competitiveness, not only do I like to win I like other people to lose. I'm kind of an asshole when competing.

 

[Gul Dukat]

Admittedly we probably operate in different circles, but I have seldom encountered underhanded competition.

I agree that higher stakes may contribute to more temptation to become over-involved to the point to compromise. However, I think the "stakes" are best measured in terms of subjective attachment, not in some objective way.
The little experience I have of underhanded competition has always been about some trifling, small thing... that someone blew out of proportion.
When the stakes are objectively high, my experience is that people take things more soberly and carefully.

I'm thinking mostly about banks and politics here... there are a lot of high-stakes industries where competition is vicious and it isn't at all about the best person winning... and then there's the issue of doping in sports/the Olympics (and being the best at getting away with it).

But I guess that this might not be about the actual competition and might be more about the reward (ie: the money/fame/international recognition).

There's also competition for the best woman among men or the best man among women... this happens quite a bit where someone will express their interest in someone and then even though there are other options available suddenly the interested party AND their friends are competing for the same person... it doesn't matter if the others are nice enough or even capable, people will flock to whatever seems the shiniest and best option.

Competition is usually good in terms of artistic expression and minor league sports... and some businesses in terms of innovation(though it's not good for the people who get fired because they worked for the loser)... I don't think it's inherently positive or negative-- it can go really well or go very very sour.