|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Which would you rather be? | |||
| A big fish in a small pond |
|
7 | 16.67% |
| A small fish in a big pond |
|
17 | 40.48% |
| An averaged-sized fish in a pond of adequate dimensions |
|
10 | 23.81% |
| The pond |
|
8 | 19.05% |
| Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
got blue?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Type: INTp
Location: rugged terrain.
Posts: 2,362
![]() |
Small fish in a big pond, if the pond is rich in flora/fauna. More to explore. Lower odds of boredom. And I'd be a fit fish with all the predators I'd have to dodge (fun!).
__________________
Sex is the new Haagen-Dazs. Do you disapprove? ~ Pulp, from INTPc _____________ Big Five: RCOEI; primary Inquisitive; R(60%)C(54%)O(52%)E(68%)I(76%) |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Type: ISTP
Location: Vancouver, BC, CA
Posts: 4,091
![]() |
Oh, it just shows that we use our local reference point to determine our position in life. We are happiest when we have more than others. The real issue comes in what defines "local reference". An ultra-rich person may find themselves stressing about things that seem ridiculous to the less wealthy, while a (nationally) poor person can have the largest home in a small town and be very happy. It can even be only the people in a room, or identification with an entire nation. And it happens with everything from 'the jones' to salaries to class division.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|