[FRIAM] merging with the mob

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

Well, I'm not much of a sports oriented person.  But sometimes they're useful.  Playing, say, right outfield on a baseball team can be satisfying.  Sure it's great if you can play short stop, pitch, and catch.  But right field is quite nice, actually.  I can say the same thing about being a full back in soccer.  I was (and am) a terrible sprinter and juggler.  But my genes gave me chicken-like quads that can kick a ball the entire length of the pitch.  So, I'm grateful for the goalie, the half-backs, and the forwards, because I'm largely incompetent at those roles.  Compensation, especially in the context of an amateur team sport, is complex.

Why have defined roles?  Well, ask the half-back, who are the most universal players in the game.  They kick like mules, juggle, run, and shoot.  Every role is open to them, except perhaps goalie.  Why shouldn't *everyone* be a half-back?  I think the answer is clarified when you watch kids play.  Every kid plays every role!  ... well, with the exception of the geeks like me who would prefer to stare at the sky than chase a ball. 8^)

More importantly, I suppose, in my professional life, I much prefer to keep my head down with someone else being the advocate/champion.  It's arguable whether I can "clean up" and interact with customers and investors.  I've done both to some extent.  But it's exhausting and unpleasant.  I'd rather team up with someone else who's energized and enjoys such roles.  If your main point is that everyone should do some practical work in a wide variety of roles just to get a sense of, and appreciate, the contributions of others and the flex and slop of role definitions, then I agree.  But don't discount the pleasure and fulfillment that can be found in sometimes being a sheeple.


On 01/23/2018 09:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Suppose that there are roles in others’ games that need to be filled for the game to keep going, or to improve the chances of winning the game.   Why do others want to play that game and not another one?  Why should the value of an individual be seen through a preconceived role?   If this kind of failure of imagination is just inevitable, then accepting a Pawn role, knowing one can play it well, should indeed be a way to promote acceptance of outsiders simply by providing existence proofs.  
> 
> But this brings me to a concern:   Why should anyone have to play a role to make up for a deficit in another person?   This leads to dependence on facilitators without understanding their value, e.g. the wife that needs to anticipate an abusive husband’s mood swings to protect the children and herself.   It is one thing if that person is a professional like a social worker or police officer that is suitably rewarded for the job they do.   Even at the highest levels of government we see such roles being diminished (e.g. at the U.S. State department).  


-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ