Does anyone know where it comes from?

When did people start viewing life as a competition to win?

Is there some aspect of society which keeps pushing this?

Usually, the “level playing field” people seem to be crony class, but that’s neither here nor there, unless the life as a game idea is also being pushed by some aspect of society which is stronger among the crony class/which encourages seeking out a life as a crony.

It’s absurd, of course - people are born how they are born - rich/smart/ugly/stupid/musical, color blind, etc. it’s just a matter of what they do with the genes and the childhood and the opportunities they have.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Does anyone know where it comes from?

^Guten tag, Herr Marx!

The playing field is level, not the competitors. The participants all have different skill sets and levels of ability, obviously, but a level field means everyone must play by the same rules, and the playing field itself gives no-one an unfair advantage.

quote:

When did people start viewing life as a competition to win?

When they realized that life itself is a competition to win, "win" in this case meaning survive. Every species is essentially in competition with every other species, and every individual within a specific species is in competition with every other individual.

Games are simply codified drills for developing critical competitive skills. This is as true for two cats play-fighting as it is for two teams meeting on a soccer field. In that respect, life has always been a game.

quote:

The playing field is level, not the competitors. The participants all have different skill sets and levels of ability, obviously, but a level field means everyone must play by the same rules, and the playing field itself gives no-one an unfair advantage.

Yep... that's the idea, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

quote:

When did people start viewing life as a competition to win?

When they realized that life itself is a competition to win, "win" in this case meaning survive. Every species is essentially in competition with every other species, and every individual within a specific species is in competition with every other individual.

kkina: Good points, you are a wise man.

quote:

kkina: Good points, you are a wise man.

Nah, just old and seen it all.

quote:

When did people start viewing life as a competition to win?

Been this way since Cain knocked off his brother Abel.

A level playing field struggle goes back centuries, where in Europe and Britain the aristocracy created a class system to protect their wealth. For the vast majority of the population there was almost no opportunity to advance one's circumstances. So the subjects sought some movement towards fairness.

The Magna Carta was a seminal document towards establishing some amount of equality in the eyes of the law.

I think that can be viewed as leading to establishing a legal equality in the USA, but of course there was still a very unfair economic system in many ways. The conflict between labor and owner, between riff-raff and the elite, persisted into the 1900's.

So I think we can look back probably to roughly the Civil War when industrialization brought general wealth, which made mere survival less of a struggle and opened up opportunities to the non-elites.

At least that seems to be the beginning of an era of great advancements for huge numbers of average people. People succeeded based on their talents, not on the economic status of their birth. So I think a lot of people believed in The American Dream. Every individual should be accorded an equal opportunity, with no unfair tilting of the playing field. People just wanted a fair chance, and they were happy to go make their way.

Nowadays that has been bastardized into "Equity", which is of course not about a level playing field.

quote:

When did people start viewing life as a competition to win?

When BC, seeing the giant saber toothed tiger chasing him and Grog noticed that Grog was faster, so in order to survive he thrust his sharpened stick into Grog's knee, so that he could win the race back to the cave and the saber toothed tiger would eat Grog, thus allowing BC to get to bang the Cute Chick and live.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
A level playing field struggle goes back centuries, where in Europe and Britain the aristocracy created a class system to protect their wealth. For the vast majority of the population there was almost no opportunity to advance one's circumstances. So the subjects sought some movement towards fairness.

The Magna Carta was a seminal document towards establishing some amount of equality in the eyes of the law.

I think that can be viewed as leading to establishing a legal equality in the USA, but of course there was still a very unfair economic system in many ways. The conflict between labor and owner, between riff-raff and the elite, persisted into the 1900's.

So I think we can look back probably to roughly the Civil War when industrialization brought general wealth, which made mere survival less of a struggle and opened up opportunities to the non-elites.

At least that seems to be the beginning of an era of great advancements for huge numbers of average people. People succeeded based on their talents, not on the economic status of their birth. So I think a lot of people believed in The American Dream. Every individual should be accorded an equal opportunity, with no unfair tilting of the playing field. People just wanted a fair chance, and they were happy to go make their way.

So, granted that aristocracy is BS - but interesting that you see the Civil War era as the advent of economic liberty - there was tremendous wealth creation going on in the Free Colonies - lots of Ben Franklins, etc.

The Civil War brought about the first large scale waive of cronies - the shoddy goods purveyors, etc.

(The end of slavery might have actually lowered labor costs. Slavery really is an idiotic system.)

Industrialization definitely improved productivity, and lead to labor being worth more/eliminated some of the "borderline starving" crowd - but I'm not sure how common that really was.

The colonial era homes in PA/NY/NJ/New England/MD were not what starving people lived in. But, parts of VA/KY/WV/Almost all of the South, were incredibly poor.

The "life as a game" thing still bothers me. I don't care about how much money everyone else has/if they have nicer widgets, etc.

That seems very broken.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:


The Magna Carta was a seminal document towards establishing some amount of equality in the eyes of the law.

Levelled the field some between the king and the nobles. Did nothing for peasants or the small merchant class.

As many noted, humans have been trying to get one over since the dawn of time.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:


So, granted that aristocracy is BS - but interesting that you see the Civil War era as the advent of economic liberty - there was tremendous wealth creation going on in the Free Colonies - lots of Ben Franklins, etc.

The Civil War brought about the first large scale waive of cronies - the shoddy goods purveyors, etc.

(The end of slavery might have actually lowered labor costs. Slavery really is an idiotic system.)

Industrialization definitely improved productivity, and lead to labor being worth more/eliminated some of the "borderline starving" crowd - but I'm not sure how common that really was.

The colonial era homes in PA/NY/NJ/New England/MD were not what starving people lived in. But, parts of VA/KY/WV/Almost all of the South, were incredibly poor.

The "life as a game" thing still bothers me. I don't care about how much money everyone else has/if they have nicer widgets, etc.

That seems very broken.

Sure there was a lot of wealth being created prior to the Civil War, but around that time is when the industrial revolution really spread widely and the average person was benefitting from it. I'm not saying the war was the event, just saying that is about the ballpark time when things were improving rapidly for a lot of people. And I am being general to the USA, Europe, and Britain because they had similar societies.

Prior to that, most everyone was a farmer or ran a very small family business. Children likely didn't get much formal education, and probably worked the farm or business from a young age. Just like all the average citizens around them. The immediate playing field was level for them, but with an insurmountable wall between them and the wealthy elite. The child of a dairy farmer in upstate NY in 1860 wasn't likely to become a wealthy banker. But the banker's son in the city likely would have a privileged career.

The advent of easier travel via the railroad along with harnessing energy in factories created the realistic hope of earning more and of being able to go somewhere else if it wasn't good here.

Back in medieval times it was easy for a peasant to complain about the Lord of the Manor, but there wasn't really anything he could do about moving up out of his poverty. But by around the Civil War an ambitious person could seek employment to save a little money and get on a train to somewhere else.

The general increase in wealth is what makes a better society possible. Mechanization frees up people so that the kids can go to school. Better food brings better health. Increased productivity brings in better wages. So I do see this general time period as bringing in big changes.

OK, mystery solved. Apparently invented in 1860 by the Milton Bradley Company.


Game of Life by kpkina, on Flickr

Problem I always see with this is if you “leveled the playing field” and made everyone equally wealthy, in 3 years we’d be right back where we are.

Savvy are savvy, dumb are dumb, etc. etc. etc.

The phrase “level playing field” most likely started when they were looking for a phrase that was in the ballpark of describing a situation where everyone had equal footing and, thus, people can compete based on their own merits.

The idea of life being a game of competition is actually reversed. All games of competition seek to model an element of life. That’s why you’ll even find some people willing to bet on the outcome of just about anything. The act of wagering gives them the vicarious experience of being part or the competition.

Unlike in a competitive zero sum game where there's only one winner (Marx and others version of the world), I prefer the saying, A rising Tide Raises All Ships.

In other words, if everyone would pull their weight in the game of life, we'd all be better off in all sorts of ways.

Including those that have to play from the lower end of the field.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
^Guten tag, Herr Marx!

The playing field is level, not the competitors. The participants all have different skill sets and levels of ability, obviously, but a level field means everyone must play by the same rules, and the playing field itself gives no-one an unfair advantage.

What you describe is the ideal. The playing field is a long ways from level, thanks mostly to an excessively large government influence.

^Yes, I'm aware of that. I was defining the basic concept, not how it is in real life.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
^Yes, I'm aware of that. I was defining the basic concept, not how it is in real life.

DOH! I should have realized that. Sorry!

^No worries, my friend.