Science desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 7[edit]

Competition vs collaboration[edit]

From my experience it seems to me that humans tend to output the best performance in a competition, with this I mean when they have to outperform an opponent (be it a single person or a team), rather than collaboration (solving a fixed problem together before a certain deadline).

That is only my anectdotal evidence though. Are there studies (if possible, more than one) that analyse whether performance is higher in competitions rather than collaborations? --Pier4r (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is very hard to discuss in general, since it may depend on (1) the cultural background of the subjects; (2) the personality of the subjects; (3) the nature of the task; (4) the measure used for measuring performance; (5) the motivating factors for performing well; (6) the training, if any, the subjects have had in this kind of task. If a group of surgical professionals have to perform a number of open-heart surgeries, I feel it would not draw out their best performance if they are divided in two competing teams, where the team first to tie the knot of the final suture stitch wins the coveted flash surgery championship. --Lambiam 09:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll excuse the breach of Godwin's Law, one well-known Bohemian corporal applied Social Darwinism to the governance of his country and would often allocate the same task to different departments on the basis that the best one would win. This led to duplication of effort, infighting and an inability to share information which was severely detrimental to the war effort. The outstanding example was the German nuclear weapons program, whose failure is described by a German historian thus:

Compared with the British and American war research efforts united in the Manhattan Project, to this day the prime example of 'big science', the Uranverein was only a loosely knit, decentralized network of researchers with quite different research agendas. Rather than teamwork as on the American end, on the German side we find cut-throat competition, personal rivalries, and fighting over the limited resources.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as requested, some research:

Our systematic review demonstrates that there is no evidence to support the role of social enterprise as a substitute for publicly owned services. However, there is evidence to show that where social enterprise operates in a collaborative environment, enhanced outcomes can be achieved, such as connectedness, well-being and self-confidence. [1]
Findings demonstrated a negative direct effect of competition on the range of perceived performance ratings, and a positive indirect effect of competition on team satisfaction as mediated through task conflict. [2]
The covid-19 pandemic has once again shown the value of international cooperation and collaboration. [3]

Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all cultures can do an Amish barnraising. But it is a proof by existence of the fact that it can be done. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at barn raising Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related, but I feel this is true with immune systems. If 1 of Snow White's 7 dwarfs got sick, he could stay in isolation and be sick. But if the other 6 intermingle with him and they all catch that sick, then the immune system of the 7 of them combined, has a stronger advantage when the sickness is divided amongst all of them, though with replication. And the reason I use the 7 dwarfs example is because they're all unemployed people, so if 1 person is sick, it benefits for them all to be sick. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the pointers! And yes the measurement, as a user mentions, may only give a slight idea as there are many factors at play. --Pier4r (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tube amps versus transistor amps - current and voltage[edit]

I remember something that I read about 20 years ago that transistor amplifiers provide a voltage whereas tube amplifiers provide a current. That doesn't make sense to me. Am I mis-remembering something, or is there some sense to it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They both provide current and voltage, because electricity (by necessity) has both; both current and voltage are different (and related, see Ohm's law) properties of an electric circuit. --Jayron 32 22:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I don't understand the meaning of one delivering a current and the other a voltage, unless it is a constant current or constant voltage, or something. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general transistor amplifiers run with higher current and lower voltage than tube amplifiers. And those valve amplifiers produce a much higher voltage, but a lower current. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An amplifier has an input signal and an output signal. As classified in Amplifier § Ideal, these can be defined as current signals or as voltage signals, giving four possible combinations. If the input and output signal are of the same type, this can be used to define the "gain" of the amplifier, which can be a current gain or a voltage gain. Vacuum tube amplifiers produce a voltage gain, while transistor-based amplifiers have a current signal as input, so it easier to think of them as providing a current gain. See for example Bipolar junction transistor: "A bipolar transistor allows a small current injected at one of its terminals to control a much larger current flowing between two other terminals, making the device capable of amplification or switching." --Lambiam 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I must have heard something like that in lay terms. Also, IIRC, you can short a tube amps output but not leave it open, whereas you can leave open the output of a transistor amp, but not short it. I.e., a tube amp needs the resistance. Is that right? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, when you write that one cannot do certain things, you mean one shouldn't. I don't know what bad things may happen when disregarding the warning. --Lambiam 10:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've accidentally had a tube amp on without a load for a short time without ruining it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tube amp applies signal volts to the grid of a tube. The volts regulate the number of electrons that flow from a heated cathode. The electrons remove electron volts of energy from between the grid and the plate. Resistance is a function of rate of conversion of electrostatic energy into thermal energy. Therefore, tube resistance decreases. A transistor amp applies signal volts to the gate of a MOSFET transistor. The volts trigger the dopants in the source-drain to chemically react, something like electroplating. The reactions convert electricity into thermal energy, which can decrease source-drain resistance. Vze2wgsm1 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]