In the article Demolishing the Competition: The Longitudinal Link Between Competitive Video Games, Competitive Gambling, and Aggression, the authors Adachi and Willoughby touch on competition in a pretty new perspective/area compared with our previous readings: competitive games, gambling or sports. In the article, their findings supported both socialization and selection hypotheses. This means that aggression and competitive games impact each other bidirectionally.
Competition in games, gambling or sports is something what professor Michael Schandorf didn’t let our class to choose as a research project topic because of its nature of competitiveness. However, thinking of how Nelson and Dawson has questioned the existence of competition in educational settings at the beginning, back in Ancient Greece, I came to wonder what games were like in the beginning. According to Frances White’s blog article, Senet, the oldest game in the history, was played in Predynastic Egypt, dating it to around 3100 BC. This game relies heavily on luck, therefore, the winner was thought to be under the protection of the gods and this notion was why the game was named Sanet, meaning ‘the game of passing’.
Seeing this, same with Education, I think initially, the nature of games could not have been competitive. It was rather something that people made under intention to gratify their spiritual needs. We know that competition in many perspectives is growing more and more stronger over time in the history. Going back to socialization and selection hypotheses, I think game is another thing that has grew to become competitive, regardless to its nature in the beginning. As people are becoming more competitive and aggressive, we chose to play or develop more and more competitive games – the socialization hypothesis. Also, as selection hypothesis is showing us, the more competitive games, the product we made from our growing competitiveness, is leading people in even more stronger competitiveness and aggressiveness.
In other words, humans are self-harming by creating competition and making it ubiquitous and because of this human-made competitive environment, as @bardaravine have argued in his/her reading response, the environment encourages even more competitiveness. As least, it is harmful when, as Aadchi and Willoughby have shown us, competition makes people more competitive and aggressive.
Frances White’s blog article: https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/ancient/the-biggest-party-in-history/