> The myth that more competition means you get a better result absolutely does not hold and needs to die. There's a fundamental equilibrium shift when you spend more resources competing than you do on progressing.
I did not make the original claim, that more rules stifles progress. Please show me the experiments done to demonstrate this or the logic used in deducing it and I will attempt to devise a counterexample.
To be clear, my claim was specific. It was that if you make rules about how hard (long) someone is allowed to work, you will stifle progress. That is because the highest performers who accomplish the most per unit time will have their output reduced. I can't see how this is not objectively true.
So if Wendy can get 2.0 units of work done per hour and Bob can get 1.0 units of work done per hour, then Bob has to either reduce his expectations or try to get the rules changed so Wendy can only work half as long as she normally would. I'm specifically saying that rule should not be allowed.
Also, there's nothing saying that a unit of time worked is being spent on competition instead of progress. Some people will spend their time undercutting their competitors, others will spend their time on true work. But saying that you can only work for N hours per day/week doesn't account for that.
Source?