Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» You lose. Someone wins. You gain. Someone pays for it. Your plus causes someone else's minus. Equilibrium. Balance. Desirable? Sustainable?
This is backwards thinking...Let me tell you what happens when I win. So as an example, I win a contract for a design job, say an addition. who else wins.... The shop where I get my supplies and everyone who produces the materials I buy. How many people in how many places do you think it take to manufacture the pencils and paper I use... The contractor who will build it, all their employees, all the services and equipment he needs and the people who service those items. Everyone who makes and supplies the materials needed to build the project, concrete, lumber, plumbing supplies, electrical supplies, cabinet makers, plasterers, tile makers and setters, roofers, landscapers, etc, etc., etc,,, Everyone who supplies the day to day needs to all those above people, they spend their earnings at grocery stores, gas stations, clothing stores, pay their bills, take care of their children, doctors, education and so on and so on. There are thousands who will benefit off that one job...Everybody wins... Lets also not to forget to thank that rich guy who can afford to pay the 500.00-750.00 bucks a square foot to build this...
Thank you for a new word tom. I just looked up DYADIC in the dictionary and it pertains to a group of TWO. I didn't know two could be a group. I'm gonna ask. Anyway there seem to be many dyads. Like yin and yang, dark and light, good and bad, sweet and sour, beautiful and ugly, kind and cruel. Are dyads always opposites? Did you know two can be a group? Thank you for your helpful reply. So equilibrium/balanced is generally not desirable? Can you tell me why? I have always admired folks I considered to be well-balanced. For example my son was a brain but also a jock and I always thought that was so cool. He was always a leader and had many friends and still does. He makes friends very easily. I've sought balance in my life but I don't think I'm there yet and perhaps I don't have the "right stuff" to ever get there. Sigh! :)
I came across it in psychology. They are not always opposites. (Dyads. Groups of two persons (called by many names: dyads, pairs, couples, etc.) are important either while standing alone or as building blocks of larger groupings. ... It is simpler to relate to one other person than to several at once.)---Internet.
Outcomes for dyadic interactions are win-win, lose-lose, win-lose, and lose-win (to cover all the possibilities).
My wife and I are a dyad. Ideally, most of our outcomes are win-win---we both get what we want.
That's the most desirable outcome of the four possibilities.
Designer is pretty much right for capitalism when it is working properly.
The balance your son displays is quite desirable---and I assume he has a developed moral component as well.
But unless his name is "Eve"---as in The Three Faces of---he is only one person and dyad is really used for a minimum division of one whole person and not his/her attributes..
That's by far my hands-down most favorite outcome. WIN WIN. It can happen and when it does I'm a happy camper. Of course it depends on the dynamic of the dyad. In some case one loves the other more. Or one is more honorable than the other. Or one is more giving. What appears to be a mismatch from the observations of outsiders can be very well matched within the dyad. There's no accounting for taste. No accounting for what folks are willing to deal with or settle for or tolerate. Thank you for your helpful and informative reply and Happy Tuesday tom. With regard to my son I believe he is of high moral character. I'm his mom you know. How could I think otherwise? But he lives and works in Honolulu and I cannot judge how he interacts with others since I am not there. I just assume he is the same person I always knew. :)
This post was edited by RosieG at October 30, 2018 1:02 PM MDT
tom jackson 