Should the winners be hard to understand or should the losers be hard to understand?
It seems like the losers should be the hard ones to understand? They did something wrong that caused the loss. If they could really explain it then they might not have had the loss?
Perhaps the point of reference would be better stated like this, a losers behavior should be harder to understand? But if a winners behavior should be easy to understand then their would be more winners? Not necessarily for a loser can presume to be able to understand something fully and yet never be able to duplicate it. And perhaps that is the best definition of a loser?
But the winners should not be hard to understand. Now perhaps some winners are so practiced that their actions are "second nature" to them and therefore hard for them to explain, for they don't have to think about something in professionalism, and it is engrained in them. But what happens when they get distraction, do they still win, or if they lose can they then be more properly defined as really being a loser. "Why didn't you get that right?". Having to ask that question indicative of talking to a loser?
And what about what we might all agree to as being non winning behavior but instead of losing the non winning behavior is winning? And the winner can't explain it because they are really a loser?
In other words again, the real winners should be easy to understand. Either they can articulate professionalism or we understand it is unfaltering behavior in engraved in them.
Now I could digress and talk about the oddball that walked off the railroad tracks? Or perhaps start a paragraph about how non-deserving winners create an unsustainable democracy of the free. But why ruin everyone's day with those....
© 2024 Thomas Paul Murphy
Index finger poked out on my cell phone.
Auto complete really should be called Automatically Complete Incorrectly, ACI.
ACI gets the best of my one finger typing.
No comments:
Post a Comment