3 ms·
> Uniting collectively behind a vision seems to be one of those things humans just can't do very well. They can unite behind a person with a vision, but not the
by ci5er 10y ago
> Uniting collectively behind a vision seems to be one of those things humans just can't do very well. They can unite behind a person with a vision, but not the vision by itself.
That's insightful. Can you speak more about this?
- vinceguidry 10y agoSure. A vision is an imagining of what the future might hold. If you don't have someone keeping the vision, a visionary, calling the shots and resolving conflicts, then the vision gets diluted amongst all the different people believing in it. It's a game of telephone only the end result is the livelihoods of everyone involved. It's easy to lose faith in. Whereas if you have a person where the buck stops, vision-wise, then you don't have to know every little detail, you can just trust the person to make everything work. Most people aren't very imaginative, they want to deal with their own stuff and leave the kingdom-building to someone else. It's just enough for them to keep the faith. Picture it this way. Say you have a plan for a better world. If the plan is, "hope X will happen," then that's a very different thing to believe in than "do X, Y, and Z, and if we do those things right, then A will happen." Both are imagined sequences of events, but one is more concrete than the other. A person in charge of the vision makes the vision that much more concrete than if it's spread out amongst random others.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]