Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant
I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant
I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
You are part of that group. I doubt that you will find any qoutes of Curry dismissing the role of or the pride his teammates should have for whatever ranking the team achieved.
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Your post is deflecting from the point. None of the Warriors can take credit for Currys ability to shoot so well. Sorry thats just facts.No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Your perspective is that of a fan, not of a league commitee, therefore it has no credit for collective analysis.
"They just happened to be on the same team."
"Ask David Lee."
he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant
I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
I've seen this type of thinking before.
He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.
He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Often times "better" is subjective, and the brightest star isn't always representative of the cluster, nor vice versa.
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Admittedly my knowledge of basketball is limited, BUT, did not other players get the ball and pass it to him? Did not other players pass the ball around disrupting the other teams defensive pattern? Ect?
Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Often times "better" is subjective, and the brightest star isn't always representative of the cluster, nor vice versa.
Often Better is NOT subjective, and sometimes even by subjective standards, it is painfully obvious that one group has done something better.
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Your perspective is that of a fan, not of a league commitee, therefore it has no credit for collective analysis.
"They just happened to be on the same team."
"Ask David Lee."
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Admittedly my knowledge of basketball is limited, BUT, did not other players get the ball and pass it to him? Did not other players pass the ball around disrupting the other teams defensive pattern? Ect?
By the same logic, the entrepreneur is nothing without his most menial laborer. Are we willing to accept this?
Example?
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Often times "better" is subjective, and the brightest star isn't always representative of the cluster, nor vice versa.
Often Better is NOT subjective, and sometimes even by subjective standards, it is painfully obvious that one group has done something better.
Examples? Will check back later.
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.You are not your group? Unless you achieved this feat yourself how can you have something reflect on you that you had nothing to do with? Thats like saying because Steph Curry can shoot well that everyone on the Warriors can do the same or should get credit for Curry being able to shoot well..
Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Admittedly my knowledge of basketball is limited, BUT, did not other players get the ball and pass it to him? Did not other players pass the ball around disrupting the other teams defensive pattern? Ect?
By the same logic, the entrepreneur is nothing without his most menial laborer. Are we willing to accept this?
An employee is not a teammate. It is not the same logic.
Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.
Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.
Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Often times "better" is subjective, and the brightest star isn't always representative of the cluster, nor vice versa.
Often Better is NOT subjective, and sometimes even by subjective standards, it is painfully obvious that one group has done something better.
Examples? Will check back later.
For example. American and Arabic culture have different subjective goals of what to define their success as.
American culture's goal would be, imo, Free and Prosperous. In this we are largely successful.
Arabic culture is more to develop an Honorable Society. In this they have largely failed as their societies have tremendous dishonesty and corruption as deeply ingrained in all aspects of their society.
No one but Curry put in the work necessary to make those shots. They just happened to be on the same team. Ask David Lee. He got no better because Curry could hit threes and he was once a teammate.Curry can make the points to make the Warriors victorious. If the Warriors are victorious they all get the credit of victory for having Curry as an exceeding teammate.
Admittedly my knowledge of basketball is limited, BUT, did not other players get the ball and pass it to him? Did not other players pass the ball around disrupting the other teams defensive pattern? Ect?
By the same logic, the entrepreneur is nothing without his most menial laborer. Are we willing to accept this?
An employee is not a teammate. It is not the same logic.
Most businesses operate on the basis of collective identity, however.
Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.
Not all groups are the same.
If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?
Often times "better" is subjective, and the brightest star isn't always representative of the cluster, nor vice versa.
Often Better is NOT subjective, and sometimes even by subjective standards, it is painfully obvious that one group has done something better.
Examples? Will check back later.
For example. American and Arabic culture have different subjective goals of what to define their success as.
American culture's goal would be, imo, Free and Prosperous. In this we are largely successful.
Arabic culture is more to develop an Honorable Society. In this they have largely failed as their societies have tremendous dishonesty and corruption as deeply ingrained in all aspects of their society.
There is considerable subjectivity in both parts of your example.
