I play to win when I play, but in some games I value winning (far) more then in others. And I love playing more when it's done in good fun and comraderie... As far as pro's go, they're a different league. They'd better play to win, cos they get their salary from it.
Craven, I don't agree. There are many many countries worldwide that are competitive and want to win, are devastated even if they don't. It's sport dependend I think : soccer : Brazil, Italy.
Basketball, baseball, American Football : You guys.
Skating : Us guys, germans ;-)
And so forth.
So far as I know, nobody's ever been executed for scoring an own-goal in the U.S...
Being competitive, IMO, is the win-win attitude in every aspect of life, be it the quest of a job position, a charade game or a karaoke contest. It is also the feeling of shame if you're not the winner and the debasing of the runner up. It is the constant comparison with others (deeply expressed in the American's love for sports statistics and their obsession with being Number One in everything worthy).
I think that extreme competitiveness is a value for many aspects in life. It enhances overall efficiency, and is great for sports. It's not that good for having fun in things you don't master.
I agree with najmelliw that the level of obsession with winning varies among nationalities, according to the specific sport. But I'm talking general here.
mapleleaf wanted an example of the opposite attitude: India. (Not that they want to lose; only they don't give that importance to beating the rival).
patiodog did not give an example, but a freak episode in a country (Colombia) that is losing it's values rapidly. It's like if I chose Tonya Harding, or the Texas mom who killed the rival cheerleader's parents.
Just being cheeky, sorry.
There are different motivators for "competitiveness," of course, some more "worthy" or useful than others. Some are driven by high personal standards, which, while it may not lead to a great deal of satisfaction in life, can certainly lead to a high level of achievement. Some are driven by a need to embarass opponents, to be "better" than everyone around them, and generally will be satisfied with winning even if they did not perform up to their own level of achievement, which is just plain goonish. We've got a very high level of both in this country, and I can't imagine how many factors contribute to it. Certainly the widespread desire to be some kind of celebrity feeds into it -- the desire to excel at something not for the pleasure of doing it or the challenge of personal improvement, but because it will make them known to some greater or lesser degree.
Probably not a new impulse in humanity, though. The standards of what constitutes a "victory" in professional sports might be changing, though.
I'm hazy on this, but didn't President Kennedy have a strong streak of competiness mixed in with the urge to take high risks? Is this the kind of personal characteristics we need in a President?