“Winning” and “Losing”, the Feud by Contagion of Human Misery, 3

Blaming routinely others for the lag between said and done may help as in indicator as well. Ideas are instantaneous, but carrying them out is not, because the physical universe has size, mass, weight, inertia, etc., and the ensuing timing, requirements and problems are quite frustrating. So much so that, oppressed by this gap, we may tend to passing the buck; herarchies in particular are often exploited to vent such frustrations on one’s subordinates. If an idea is to be carried out, tolerating and handling the constraints of the physical universe is unavoidable, regardless of who is going to do it. Hence, blaming the individual in charge for not having carried it out already without providing the needed resources, beginning with due time, is irrational. And the “winning” personality may indulge in just that in particular, while a rational individual, once given vent to the frustration, will patiently roll up his or her sleeves.

And do not give in to the impulse of lessening the abuses of the “winning” by considering them mere “side effects” on the fringes of something else greater and better, because it’s the reverse: they are the core rather than the fringes. Those abuses are the basic purpose of the “winning” personality’s action; like a cyclist tied up to the bicycle has to keep on pedalling to avoid stopping and falling, he or she has to commit them as human sacrifices to stay “winning” ahead of his or her own “losing” demons.

As a consequence, the rightful relationship between cause and effect is overturned: appearances aside, the “winning” personality does not posture arrogantly because he or she gets ahead of others… it’s the other way round: he or she gets ahead of others because he or she postures arrogantly. And the sole cause is the “losing” personality sheepishness and subjection. Who kowtows to whom? Who wags its tail to whom, and who pets whom? Who throws the stick and who takes it back?