Relationship ladder dating
We understand the rules even if we don’t usually discuss them as shown by the use of a term like “cheat” when someone goes outside the norm.
Now take into account what happens after this game is “won”, there are no more rounds, no advancement, no remaining goal which might lead to a sense of disappointment in the “player” where they ask, “Is this it?
In my two postings, i really was neither advocating people buying annuities nor advocating the opposite; it was a genuine puzzlement that led to my question.
100,000 to serve over 38,000 employees in massachusetts.
If it isn’t already obvious, see how this model is a particularly bad fit for the polyamorous.
Start with the idea that there is a single ladder involving two people, it can not be adapted when there is more than one relationship and therefore more than one ladder.
Individual games have both explicit rules and implicit assumptions of play (and, since we’re indirectly discussing feelings, we might set aside the assumption of rationality).
This could lead to a recognition that the prize isn’t as wonderful as it looked at the start of the game.
This breaks down the end-game, if there no single finished state or the goal is weakly defined or not defined at all one can’t “win”.
It is absurd to say that to “win” a player would have capture or co-opt all the ladders, re-norming the game, and thereby be the “best” at all things and provide everything. I know I just spent a few hundred words describing it but it’s not real, it’s a set of assumptions not a destiny.
I’ve illustrated it as four stages, proceeding bottom to top, with a word cloud for context.
One can argue about the exact location and number or arrangement of the stages and the set and positions of the descriptive words, but that is beside the point.