Quote:
Originally Posted by endersshadow
Obviously everyone would want to be the best of the best... but if you had to pick one, which would you rather be? Would you rather be the best of the worst or the worst of the best?
Some examples:
The richest of the poor or the poorest of the rich. You can live in a poor neighborhood but have the nicest house, car, clothes, etc or you can live in among the affluent but not fit in, in any other fashion.
The best athlete in a small university or the worst player of a big school. You can be the star of an unknown university but likely never be scouted or you can be a career backup (and never see the field) for national champions.
The alpha male of losers or the beta male of the cool crowd. You can be the guy everyone looks up to (but given the people, does it really say much?) or you can be the guy nobody notices in a crowd full of people everyone notice.
I understand that everything isn't black and white, but some things are. I've seen both situations and they each have their perks. Being the best strokes your ego and being the worst makes you strive to do/be better. What are your thoughts though? Feel free to post specific scenarios.
|
that is a tough generalization to make. i think it is important to first rule out the things you won't accept, then prioritize what is most important and maximize whatever that is.
as an athlete, playing time is the key. if i'm getting playing time, then next priority is to be playing at the highest level possible.
in real estate , i think priorities are fairly balanced between location, size, newness, habitability..
with friends, respect is top priority. i will hang out with the people i like the most (coolest), as long as i'm respected in the group.
so you can go on forever, talking about the different priorities for the different things in your life. there does not need to be a pattern between a person's choices in real estate and sports.