Two are better than one because they have good return for their work.*
It takes two people to make one person successful. That’s something I first saw clearly while working in Papua New Guinea.
My friend Neil Anderson had stories, I had a desire to write. We worked together and a book was born.** Not that it was so quick, or so easy, but without the partnership nothing would have happened.
The fact is, it can take a lot more than two to make something complete, but two is minimum.
That doesn’t mean that both aren’t succeeding. Both can, and will . . . in different parts of the action. One may be dominant and the other supportive, but change situations and the supportive may be the dominant.
It’s the person working completely alone that dries up.
One artist I learned of tried it, working day and night, year after year, never going out, even having his food delivered. In the end, he shot himself. He left a lot of good work, but to no one.
It was the ultimate non-success.
We all know such stories. And we’ve all seen how we can’t make it alone.
I see the principle worked out everywhere. God saw it first: It wasn’t good for man to be alone. If nothing else, it requires two for the ongoing of the human race, not to mention the help, the companionship, the conversation, the having someone to do things for.
And there’s more. Every response requires stimulus, and stimulus, a response. Every performer needs an audience, every writer needs a reader, every talker needs a listener, every pitcher needs a catcher.
You add to the list.
And thanks for reading this. Without you, I’d dry up.
**In Search of the Source, by Neil Anderson and Hyatt Moore
Next: For Whom Am I Working? Coming Tuesday.