Are we better when we're a "we" society or a "me" society?
Can Über-competitiveness be a problem?
I totally agree with the notion that helpers win over takers in the long game.
Connection vs. competition?
Discuss.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- ... ompetition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;There are two different sides to human nature. Both are important, but the balance between them has huge implications for our wellbeing, culture and future.
One side of our nature is self-interested. This is our in-built instinct to do whatever we can to survive and thrive, often at the expense of others. The other side is co-operative and leads us to help others even when there is no direct benefit for ourselves.
Although Charles Darwin is normally associated with the “survival of the fittest” theory, he also believed that our natural instinct was to care for others. In The Descent of Man he wrote that the communities most likely to flourish were “those with the most sympathetic members”, an observation backed up by research that we are wired to care about each other……..
In workplaces, research from Adam Grant, professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School shows that “givers” - people who help others without seeking anything in return - are more successful in the long term than “takers” - who try to maximise benefits for themselves, rather than others……..
Secondly, it links to the growing body of evidence including a recent paper from the University of Warwick that shows when people feel happier and more connected they are more productive at work. Dr Teresa Belton, researcher and visiting fellow at the University of East Anglia, has also shown it leads people to behave in more environmentally sustainable ways.
