Two Scenarios


Scenario A: A team of four people assemble, and they have a common goal. They all wish to share in the responsibility. However, soon after the project begins, one member finds that the other three are not participating in the planning stages. They do not contribute to the decision making. The one member, finding no reason to engage with the other members, begins doing all the plan making on her own.  Eventually, a decision is made that the other members of the party dislike. They become pissed off and accuse the one of taking control of the group.

If you were in the position of the one engaged person, would you behave differently?

Scenario B:  A team of four people assemble, and they have a common goal. They all wish to share in the responsibility. However, soon after the project begins, two members appear to have very different ideas about how the group should proceed. But both sides are convinced that they are correct, and so they’re only objective with the other person is to criticize the other’s views; they do not question their own beliefs nor attempt a compromise. This does not get anything accomplished, so each individual ceases to speak to the other individual and begins the working and decision making on his own.

2 thoughts on “Two Scenarios

  1. third scenario:
    the one person who can make any decisions kills the other three and goes on to become the greatest ruler known to mankind. and womankind.

    animals love that guy too.

  2. Scenario D:

    A bunch of aristocrats get together to discuss how to maintain power in their new world, in perpetuum, while presenting the masses with an illusion of authority and responsibility. They decide the Roman Republic is a wonderful model, though loosely organized and bogged down by its primitive tribal organization in the comitia. They create a tripartite system, where each branch selects, appoints, or presents the illusion of letting the masses induct democratically (while straining the results through an aristocratic electoral college filter, of course) representatives and officials from among the hereditary aristocracy, with just enough faux meritocracy mixed in to maintain appearances. These aristocrats argue about nothing, paying special attention to the ability to keep the majority of the hoi polloi distracted through the exploitation of man’s tendency to adopt manichean dualisms. Little progress is made, and much money is spent for no good reason, at home and abroad, providing the “spatial-temporal fix” a capitalist system requires to progress to even grander heights of economic cannibalism, before it finally runs out of fodder and begins to devour itself. And by the time the economy crashes, briefly plunging the world into chaos, the aristocracy have already diversified their assets to the point where they collectively own half of the conglomerations and megacorps in the Northern Hemisphere, allowing them to slip easily from one currency to the next, with little real loss in the way of profit (someone has to rebuild things, you know, and why not my company?).

    One country’s revolution is a very small thing, indeed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s