Is cooperation or competition better, and why?

Question

Please choose one or the other and explain why you think your choice is better. Thank you.

MisterWack · Accepted Answer

Competition is better, let’s say you have a business and you charge $25 when you could afford to price it lower then there’s a group of competitors selling at $1, $5, $10 so you feel the need to lower the price to meet the new standard.
That helps the consumer, to be anti competition ruins the system for consumers and businesses. Businesses push out a less quality product, levy higher margins onto their base, and feel consumers don’t have a choice except theirs which enables the bad behavior without competition.

To win over that consumer; the companies have different offers, packages, and quality of life features which benefit the consumers and prompts them to make a well rounded decision to give business to those wanting customers.

Cooperation can be good too, but this was the first thing to come to mind so I’m sticking to it.

AngryCarl3 · Accepted Answer

If there was more co-operation we'd still be getting oil.

thegreenyogi · Accepted Answer

I think an equal balance of both would be ideal. Cooperation is the best policy. And competition is what enables improvement and drive which provided is not taken to extremes where one becomes so obsessed with winning that you don't play by the rules is an added bonus. So the combina of both is a good equation in my view.

RandomGirl42 · Accepted Answer

Cooperation 'cuz I'm a really terrible sport and when things get competitive I usually have tantrums and throw the game pieces and stuff. 😳

OneViewpoint · Answer

The two things are not mutually exclusive. They both have value when used in the right situation. Recognizing those situations and applying the right approach is the key.

Cooperation will often result in a faster more efficient result than acting alone.
Competition and risk will sometimes produce novel innovations.

This is the fundamental conundrum with Conservative brains and economics. Commies vs Capitalism. They latch onto Capitalism and free market competition as the answer to all questions. They doggedly refuse to admit that cooperation (socialism) is the right solution where some things are better managed under public sector control like healthcare, education, a currency, and defense.

NathanDavis · Answer

better for what?

it really depends on the goal or the gain

also, but can happen at the same time... when you have teams, you do cooperate in order to compete against other teams

so, the BEST is to cooperate in order to compete better... and the worse is when someone inside the team gets competitive, instead of cooperating in order to gain the glory to themselves... lol

Telekinetic-Potato · Answer

It depends.

Overall, competition is better. Even within the same company, it's common to have teams competing against eachother to perform best. Competition drives innovation.

The downside is if you take it too far and it becomes too intense for too long. Then everyone gets burnt out.

And if it's all about collaboration then what happens a lot is nobody is in charge. And then the whole team is going in a direction that maybe has nothing to do with the larger goal or even works against it.

A good example is what happened to blizzard. Not that I play the game but a world of war raft developer in an interview mentioned how there were too many people in charge and it lead to bad decisions.

It tracks because a lot of very successful projects in that industry were smaller ones lead by less than 3 people.

Twalli · Answer

Competition requires some animosity. Cooperation is generally better. Some people do better if there's a "prize" at the end, but it's generally better working as a team or group and cooperating. You can see how groups can be more successful in baseball. A single player cannot win or lose the game. I'm a St. Louis Cardinals fan, and we would not have won as many games as we have thus far if it wasn't for the entire team working together.

AviatorTom · Answer

Each has its place, including some situations where a balance between the two is most desirable.

In sports, competition is better. In economics, competition usually results in lower prices for the consumer.

In the office, working together as a team, cooperation is better, though a little competition is good. Too much competition, though, can completely destroy a work team.

molonski2 · Answer

Needs to be a combination of the two , as straight collaboration ( in business sense ) creates collusion and monopoly , yet individuals collaborating to correct a problem is highly positive..

No point competing in that example..

ohsheeT · Answer

Competition is better because then you have to be on your toes and thinking all the time and you have to outthink the other entity in a little bit of competition doesn't hurt it actually will build you and your product

slatyb · Answer

Voluntary cooperation beats individual effort.

Kelley1 · Answer

Neither is better; it depends on the situation.

Sevenpointfive · Answer

for me personally, i need competition. but i don't think it's always good. a lot of stupid people think they're smart. so they talk loud and intimidate others into following.

Kingofkings1992 · Answer

What is the context? Question seems a little vague. Both can be a good thing, but I give a slight nod overall for cooperation.

Jeff51 · Answer

At work I cooperate with my boss.

Xawyx-2 · Answer

I prefer cooperation.

LC75LC71 · Answer

Competition. Iron sharpens iron.

Hulk30 · Answer

i'm Convinced it's more constructive

888theGreat · Answer

competition

Is cooperation or competition better, and why?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is it better to compete or to cooperate and why?