3 ms·
Why does it have to be all self-giving or all self-serving? Why not simply a team, with the team first?
by ip26 5y ago
Why does it have to be all self-giving or all self-serving? Why not simply a team, with the team first?
- asplake 5y agoInteresting point, and you need both. Team for things involving challenge and purpose, mutual care to sustain it all.
- travisgriggs 5y agoAmen. “We” is a word that is different than “you and I.” It is a word that requires both a plurality and a sense of unity. It’s an entity that needs both “you and I”, but also transcends “you and I.” It does need to compete with or replace you or I.
- travisgriggs 5y agoDang autocorrect. Last sentence was meant to read: “It does not need to compete with or replace you or I.”
- nsomaru 5y agoUltimately you can only control your actions and attitudes. What happens if the SO is not playing for the team? So again, team play comes down to self-giving, because you are not in control of the other person.
- lupire 5y agoSame thing that happens in any team. the team fails.
- slothtrop 5y agoExactly, it's an unrealistic depiction. And it's not a zero sum game. You can care about your spouse's happiness as well as your own, and can't rely on someone else entirely to make you happy.