Not everybody is a game-changer, but everybody can make a game-changing impact: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Not everybody is a game-changer, but everybody can make a game-changing impact and contribution to Not everybody is a game-changer, but everybody can make a game-changing impact) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|shitmaxim|}} | {{a|shitmaxim|}} | ||
Let’s put this one through the syllogistic wringer. This means one of two things, either | Let’s put this one through the syllogistic wringer. This means one of two things, either: | ||
:(a) not everyone ''is'' a game-changer, but everyone ''can be'' a game-changer even though some — most, even — ultimately are not, in which case, so what? What use is someone who could be, but eventually isn’t, a game-changer? And if we are being [[deterministic]] about it — something the [[JC]] is not usually minded to do, except | :(a) not everyone ''is'' a [[game-changer]], but everyone ''can be'' a game-changer even though some — most, even — ultimately are not, in which case, so what? What use is someone who could be, but eventually isn’t, a [[game-changer]]? And if we are being [[deterministic]] about it — something the [[JC]] is not usually minded to do, except when proving a point like this one, but still — if it turns out you ''aren’t'' a [[game-changer]] now, then it was as true then as it is now, that you were ''never'' going to be one: you just didn’t know it. In which case, was it ever really true that you ''could'' be a [[game-changer]]? We say no. | ||
If not that, then it must seek to draw a distinction between a “[[game-changer]]” and a “person who makes a game-changing impact”. But the latter seem, to your correspondent, to be the very definition of the former. Building in our previous learning, we can extract the following: | |||
P1 Not everybody is a game-changer | :P1 Not everybody is a [[game-changer]]. | ||
P2 Everybody can make a game-changing | :P2 Everybody can make a game-changing contribution. | ||
:P2(a) To make a game-changing contribution is to be a game-changer. | |||
:P2(b) A person who ''can'' be a game-changer, deterministically, ''will'' be a game-changer. | |||
:P2(c) A person who, deterministically, ''will'' be a game-changer, ''is'' a game-changer. | |||
:C Not everybody is a game changer, but everybody | |||
Revision as of 20:23, 13 October 2020
|
Crappy advice you find on LinkedIn™
|
Let’s put this one through the syllogistic wringer. This means one of two things, either:
- (a) not everyone is a game-changer, but everyone can be a game-changer even though some — most, even — ultimately are not, in which case, so what? What use is someone who could be, but eventually isn’t, a game-changer? And if we are being deterministic about it — something the JC is not usually minded to do, except when proving a point like this one, but still — if it turns out you aren’t a game-changer now, then it was as true then as it is now, that you were never going to be one: you just didn’t know it. In which case, was it ever really true that you could be a game-changer? We say no.
If not that, then it must seek to draw a distinction between a “game-changer” and a “person who makes a game-changing impact”. But the latter seem, to your correspondent, to be the very definition of the former. Building in our previous learning, we can extract the following:
- P1 Not everybody is a game-changer.
- P2 Everybody can make a game-changing contribution.
- P2(a) To make a game-changing contribution is to be a game-changer.
- P2(b) A person who can be a game-changer, deterministically, will be a game-changer.
- P2(c) A person who, deterministically, will be a game-changer, is a game-changer.
- C Not everybody is a game changer, but everybody