4 ms·
It's much simpler to be valued by your peers if it is perceived that you're value has surpassed theirs instead of perfectly balanced.
by DiggyJohnson 2y ago
It's much simpler to be valued by your peers if it is perceived that you're value has surpassed theirs instead of perfectly balanced.
- tivert 2y ago> It's much simpler to be valued by your peers if it is perceived that you're value has surpassed theirs instead of perfectly balanced. One flaw in your comment seems to be the assumption that "superiority" is a one-axis quality. You could have a group where everyone is superior, just at different things.
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoThat’s a great point, so I appreciate that first of all. How would you prevent extraordinary or lucky people from encroaching on the “market share” (hate using this metaphor honestly) of their peers? I am concerned that your (good) point assumes that we can reasonable assume that there’s enough opportunities for individuals to provide value to others to match the number of people looking to do so. What if there’s an imbalance? Which seems inevitable. I.e. What if it turns out there’s not ways for all the people on earth to distinguish themselves in the way that you describe?