Utah vs. BYU Football
Growing up, my family often watched the Utah vs. BYU football matches. My parents were Utah fans and several of my siblings and family friends supported BYU. Watching those games taught me a few things about rivalries, because, in the heat of an intense match, sportsmanship may show or not show up. Similary, any sporting game is a good example to show how cooperation and competition are essential components of the game and they are often counter-balancing each other. In an attempt to compare previous priniciples, cooperation usually appears with good sportsmanship, and competitiveness often appears with a lack of sportsmanship.
Watching BYU play Utah in football is absolutely fun, because practically every single matchup is a spectacle to watch. No one knows if there will be a clutch field goal, touchdown, or complete meltdown of how a team plays. Full disclosure, I’m slightly partial to BYU. Go cougs! However, I have joked that if I were to attend in person one of these games, I would wear purple because I do enjoy the effort that both teams put into every meetup. The cumulative athletic performance from both teams is impressive and entertaining.
I think it’s common for there to be some kind of unsportsmanship demonstration in rivalry type games, and I feel sad when those moments happen. Unsportsmanship does not demonstrate discipline nor gratitude for the other side. It is as if one’s own side is the only right way. This can be sometimes confusing, because don’t all sports practices demonstrate discipline for their own side? Why does it have to disappear when interacting with a different team? Even within somebody’s own team there is competition, but we usually cheer our teammates on. As well, if a team has internal extreme competition, that team isn’t likely to succeed.
Unsportsmanship can be a symptom of extreme competitiveness, and, in cases of extreme competitiveness, it isn’t uncommon for vandalism, catch-phrases, and or fights to occur when the other side loses. It is shocking to see people enjoy the other side experience pain. Why do these things happen? There are a few things that make sense: animosity, not wanting to be cheated, and wanting to win.
Seeing and experiencing joy when another side experience pain is counter productive to the larger game at play because we are all on the same team in the larger context. I hope to discuss why extreme competitiveness is counter-productive and not long-lasting by discussing game theory, freedom of speech, building bridges, and humanizing the opposing side. As such, I want to show that following the previous ideas is much more sustaining than causing pain for the opposing side or enjoying the opposing team’s pain.
Disclaimer
Before I go on, I should state a disclaimer about this post. I am not an expert in game theory. While I am fascinated with the intricacy of game theory, I am a simple and relative nobody in the grand scheme of things. All the while, I am troubled and concerned about the rise of extreme competitiveness among political and cultural norms.
Game Theory
Why do I point out unsportsmanship in college football? Well, it plays into a concept of game theory with teams. Game theory is a simulation to see the relationship between people and environments. The classic ones are non-zero sum games and zero sum games. Non-zero sum games is where everyone participating wins or loses, and zero sum game is where there is a loser and a winner. Numerically, a win represents a 1 and a loss represents a -1. So in a zero sum game, the sum of a win and a loss with opposing teams comes out to 0. Where as in a non-zero sum game, everybody gets a 1.
Additional details of game theory include person types in the relationship. These person types may be cheats, copycats, and cooperatives. Each one of these person types has several different variants; for example, copycats could always copy in a relationship or only copy up to a certain point. Thinking about how these types interact with each other often piques my interest.
I absolutely love this website and how it simulates relationships of person types in a prisoner’s dilemma game. I recommend everyone to visit. Personally I am heartened by the simulation, because it shows how copycats are longlasting. Unfortunately, it also shows that cheats are more successful in the short term. These units of time are all relative of course, so I might need to practice some patience as the copycat people come out on top of the cheats.
Why do I mention game theory? It seems to be playing out in realtime in today’s heated culture. People think they are losing and beating the opposing side. So I have a few things to say.
This for That
It’s been an interesting few weeks with so many current events that reminds me of game theory. Charlie Kirk got assassinated, the government shuts down, Kimmel suspended, Israeli hostages recovered, shootings, arson, stabbings, and the list can go on and on. For myself, even hearing minimal detail about these events indicates to me how much extreme competition is taking hold of modern culture.
The first and foremost event related to a zero-sum game is Charlie Kirk getting assassinated. What a terrible event to occur, and it is sad that this event probably was a result of a win-lose mentality. As far as it is determined while writing this post, generally speaking the motivation of the shooter was probably to eliminate a strong opposing viewpoint.
In addition to the motivation of the shooter, it is shocking and absurd to see video clips of random strangers celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk. Really? You’re celebrating the murder of an individual for practicing their freedom of speech that you also have the freedom to do so? It seems absolutely hypocritical and unethical. This is where cheering the opposing side’s pain gets confusing and weird. The privileges and opposing side enjoys are very commonly the same privileges that oneself enjoys. It seems to border circular reasoning.
Celebrating the pain of the opposing side should never be a rationale for how humans treat another person. So many popular and peaceful movements in history are full of people being peaceful in order to practice radical forgiveness and acceptance. When people start thinking in terms of one huge team, the success of culture and society is apparent.
- U.S. Civil Rights Movement
- Rwanda’s post-genocide recovery
- India’s Independence Movement
- Post–World War II Reconstruction
- Women’s Suffrage Movements
Close but not Quite
I recently found this string of comments in a YouTube comment section about Ezra Klein interviewing Utah Governor Spencer Cox.
In my opinion, while these comments do state a reality; even then, I feel that they are over-simplifying the issue of inflammatory rhetoric and are contributing to an extreme competition culture. Does modern side-ism rhetoric play into a factor of tribalism? Certainly, this was one of the things I learned in Supercommunicators. When people aren’t speaking in the same communication type then no one is listening. President Trump is at fault for the rhetoric that he chooses to use, because the opposing side won’t listen to him and vice versa. Granted, it may totally be Trump’s intention to do so, in order to portray himself as a strong man.
At the same time, I want to caution anybody that would follow what these comments are saying, that is if you shift the responsibility off to someone else then you are disabling you’re own action for the country to heal. If no one offers a gesture of peace, then it stands to reason that competition will continue. Did MLK or the Civil Rights activists just stop their efforts because of the opposing side’s resistance? Nope! They were peacefully active in demonstrations against incivility.
In my experience, whenever someone makes a hasty claim, they are not leaving room for any other possibility. And in a large world with so many factors, there are so many possibilities. Do I take comfort in simple answers? Sure I do, and it feels nice to try and find something that is easy to explain. Is there value in finding a simple answer? There may be some, but I believe it isn’t the most value that someone can get. Simply shifting the burden and easily explaining a problem will not solve the real problem.
Non-zero Sum Game
I explained a non-zero sum game is where everybody wins or everybody loses at the same time. I want to give examples that I believe help promote the ideology of a non-zero sum game.
Freedom of Speech
The late-night talk show hosts may not be the best examples for non-zero sum game interaction. I can see the argument going both ways where they are focused on a non-zero sum game or they are not. Ask any one of them, and I am sure that they are thinking to oppose Trump and his hectic administration, a zero sum game mentality. Occasionally though, I do think that something remarkable does appear.
Jimmy Kimmel had a few things to say about the Republican party referencing the Charlie Kirk murder. Jimmy Kimmel pinned the Republican party as desperate to say the murderer wasn’t a Republican. This is obviously not part of a non-zero sum game ideology. Then ABC suspended his show. Still not so clear of a non-zero sum game ideology. So where is the thing that I wanted to point out? I really liked what Kimmel said in the opening portion of his returning monologue. I’m just going to have to list what I liked.
- Several of Jimmy’s opponents came out in support of Jimmy’s right to free speech. Jimmy recognized their effort for speaking out against cancelling the show. Jimmy wins for returning, and Jimmy’s opponents win for retaining their own right to free speech.
- Jimmy expressed remorse for how his previous joke landed, and he reiterated his compassion sincerely for the murder of Kirk. Jimmy recognized where he may have faltered.
- Jimmy identifies the class of people that are really dangerous for modern society. Essentialy, that class of people are the ones that would follow a zero-sum game mentality of getting another side to lose.
At the core of Jimmy’s suspension is freedom of speech. I think that freedom of speech is essential in a non-zero sum game. If anybody can speak their minds freely with the intention of improving things for everybody as a whole, then this is an obvious win for everybody. This is where a healthy level of competition would come in. I hope this point is clear. A non-zero sum game doesn’t mean a simple and easy cooperation mentality, but active improvement and cooperation for the collective good where there isn’t a clear loser.
Building Bridges
The following are examples of building bridges.
As a consequence of the shooting and arson of an LDS church in Grand Blanc, Michigan, members of the LDS church raised over $300,000 for the family of the shooter (I contributed too and I am a member). The shooter left behind a family with medical needs, and the shooter probably left them with trauma. A member of the LDS church, David Butler, starting a GiveSendGo for people to contribute money to the family of the shooter.
Related to the incident in Grand Blanc, Pastor Jeff from the Youtube channel Hello Saints made a video responding to some Evangelical leaders making claims about the LDS church. Pastor Jeff called out other Evangelical leaders for saying members of the LDS church are going to hell because of all the bad events that were happening to the church. Pastor Jeff demonstrates true Christ-like attributes by teaching we should not hurt someone that is already hurt. Don’t beat them while they are down, essentially. Instead, Pastor Jeff suggested to practice what Christ would truly do, and that is cry with those that cry.
In a similar event in 2007, a milkman to the Amish shot members of that community. What was the Amish’s response? They forgave the shooter and raised money for the family of the shooter.
I feel that the previously stated examples show how to build bridges in modern society. Reach out and offer healing and peace, and don’t beat another person who is already losing. Pastor Jeff’s mission is to build a bridge between Evangelical and LDS Church communities, and I think he does so remarkably. Personally, my life has been enriched from building bridges by getting to know other relgious communities in the Salt Lake City area. I have learned from them and I have grown wiser because of it.
Humanizing
As I looked around for articles explaining why people find joy in seeing the opposing side lose, I found this profound quote.
Once we stop using negative labels in favor of thoughtful analysis, based on reason and compassion, we feel more intellectually honest and emotionally alive. And we transcend rage.
The most efficient way to increase self-value is to respect and value others. It helps to realize that a little bit of all of us is in each of us. Of course, it isn’t always easy to value and respect others. But the harder it is to recognize the basic humanity of another person, the greater the reward in doing so. [1]
In a zero sum game, people tend to dehumanize the other side. Perhaps the opposing side is “less normal” because our own side is “normal”. But realizing that every single human being has similar attributes and their own individual experiences can enable a thoughtful discovery of the humanity in another person. Then rage will be less and peace can exist.
The Curse and Blessing of Being a Centrist
Speaking of taking sides in a zero sum game interaction (win-lose), here is something that I’ve wanted to say for a while. For some reason, being a centrist, vocal proponents of political ideologies tend to villanize me. Additionally what doesn’t make sense is they think I’m often only for the opposing side because I’m not agreeing with their assertions, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. I would much rather listen and enjoy the perspectives of any side, of which I find myself firmly set in a centrist role.
The good news: We can connect, even when we disagree, even with the people we disagree the most.
Charles Duhigg
While I do listen to a lot of people with vastly different ideas, I do humanize their experience and I take their stories into account. When I hear them, I see the pain they’ve experienced, and I acknowledge that perhaps their judgement is skewed due to the pain. Since they are in pain, they need to be listened to and helped in any way possible. I don’t agree with all their assertions, instead I try to build a bridge to make sure that person is still a friend. A non-zero sum game (win-win) can exist without needing to agree on assertions.
But what if that person isn’t in pain? Then they came by their experience just as validly as I came to my experience. I would hope that we could discuss our own experience in order to create something different, newer, and overall better for the pair of us.
It is a curse being a centrist because I have to struggle so much more for people to understand that I am on their side. It is also a blessing because I am rewarded when I work with people and they work with me. I am so much the wiser for these cooperative moments.
It’s a Wrap
I hope my opinion is clear. I mean no ill-will to anyone, and I also mean that we all need to cooperate and heal. When there is healthy competition between teams, we are all better because of it - we will build each other up. Healthy competition may include proper practice of free speech, building bridges, and humanizinng everyone everywhere. Name calling, eliminating freedom of speech, dehumanizing, and other similar actions is not the way to go. By following all the ideas I have associated with healthy competition, I believe that we may live long and be resilient to the pushes and resistance of extreme competition.
Resources
- When Self-Value Is High, There Is No Rage
- Pain Brings Out Our Mean Streak
- Incidental physical pain reduces brain activities associated with affective social feedback and increases aggression
- “These findings suggest that pain increased aggression, while before that, it suppressed brain activities of the salience network involved in the process of salient social information and the value system associated with the value representation of social events.”
- “Specifically, we identify three broad psychological channels that elicit zero-sum beliefs: intrapersonal and situational forces that elicit threat, generate real or imagined resource scarcity, and inhibit deliberation.”