Originally Posted by
Diana
However, with your CEO analogy -- the thing is, there's no such thing as the CEO of the world. Nobody, not a single person, sees the whole picture, what they see is always, no matter how high up on the scale of power you go, it is always colored by that lens, that filter of their own perceptions.
Each person has infinite different attributes, you can always be #1 at something. This I agree with, but the people who have to resort to being best at being themselves obviously either can;t find their tallent or don't have one, thus there is a heirarchy of some sort.
Here is an example....
Joe height: 6ft weight: 180 lb mile-time: 6:25
Jim height: 4ft weight: 140 lb mile-time: 5:10
Jack height: 5ft weight: 210 lb mile-time: 8:13
Joe is in 1st place for most height, 2nd place for most weight, 2nd place in the mile. First place at being Joe.
Jim is in 3rd place for most height, 3rd place for most weight, 1st place for mile time. 1st place at being Jim.
Jack is in 2nd place for most height, 1st place for most weight, 3rd place for mile time and 1st place at being joe.
Ask any Fe person, what society values most and they will tell you, it sure wont be being best at being yourself, so we can cross off that potential freebee on the table of ranks. now lets suppose that society needs taller people for one reason or another, Joe wins! Jow has the hieghest status. It doesn't matter how many other first places you have. Maybe for personal satisfaction and for potential of being useful in other fields, but the #1 valued attribute is what wins. Of course this system of heirarchy is nonsense and unreal to some types, so there are bridges for this, but it is a fact that in some fields such as science, information tends to trickle from the top. Although its not as rigid as I might make it sound, there are independant companies that do different things, but when it comes to understanding and explaining theory, thats a pure heirarchial structure. Same with tournament sports.