Why the path of least resistance is not always the best

[garbonzo]

So I was listening in to a church sermon with my Dad and the preacher used a story to teach that the membership should work harder in the religion:

The story of two donkeys can be encouraging.

Two donkeys went on a long journey and were given a choice as to the load they had to carry. In front of them were two huge bags of equal size: one of them contained cotton and the other one sugar. One of the donkeys quickly chose the bag of cotton and the other one had to be satisfied with the bag of sugar.

After trekking for a couple of hours over a steep hill, the donkey carrying the sugar was near collapse, while the one who chose the cotton still had a spring in his step. Then they came to a river that they had to wade through. On the other side of the river, the donkey with the sugar load suddenly discovered that his load virtually disappeared. The other donkey was dismayed at the volume of water that was absorbed by the cotton and was later even more surprised at how reluctant the fibres were to release the water. One can imagine the ecstasy and agony of the rest of the journey.


Does this even make sense? Fittingly to the JW religion, the speaker removed the last sentence and added that the donkey with the cotton drowned. Which makes the story make even less sense. Theoretically, both donkeys would drown. Cotton does not magically make water heavier, lol.

 

[Balerion]

Well yeah it makes sense. Wet cotton weighs more than dry cotton, and sugar is going to dissolve in water.

The point of the story seems to be that the shortcuts you take now can be your downfall later. That's a good lesson.

 

[Rhaedas]

Even more so, the donkey with sugar lost his load completely. As a parable, what does that mean for teaching a lesson? Spin it to try and say that your load for doing the work is lifted from you eventually maybe, but you could also say that all that strain was for nothing, if the goal was to get your payload to the destination.

 

[Balerion]

Even more so, the donkey with sugar lost his load completely. As a parable, what does that mean for teaching a lesson? Spin it to try and say that your load for doing the work is lifted from you eventually maybe, but you could also say that all that strain was for nothing, if the goal was to get your payload to the destination.

But that clearly wasn't the point of the parable. The point was to show how choosing the easiest path can hurt you in the long run.

 

[garbonzo]

But that clearly wasn't the point of the parable. The point was to show how choosing the easiest path can hurt you in the long run.

The original parable made sense, but not the JW iteration of the other donkey drowning. Either they both drown, or none drown, as they would both be carrying the same weight under the water, lol.

 

[Balerion]

The original parable made sense, but not the JW iteration of the other donkey drowning. Either they both drown, or none drown, as they would both be carrying the same weight under the water, lol.

Uh, no, they wouldn't. The one donkey is carrying water-weighted cotton, and the other is carrying an empty sack.

 

[Syne]

Either they both drown, or none drown, as they would both be carrying the same weight under the water, lol.

No. Would it be just as easy for you to swim with a winter coat on?

 

[garbonzo]

No. Would it be just as easy for you to swim with a winter coat on?

Interesting. Thanks. But still, it is kind of sadistic to add in that the donkey drowns, lol.

 

[Balerion]

Interesting. Thanks. But still, it is kind of sadistic to add in that the donkey drowns, lol.

Well, yes, that does seem excessive. The point could be made as effectively without the dead donkey.

 

[Arioch]

@JDawg --

It certainly is excessive, but the bible is full of excessive cruelty, violence, and punishment.

 

[Sarkus]

So the JW parable is one of either failing or dying?
Is it trying to say that the only way to survive is to fail in your task?

 

[garbonzo]

So the JW parable is one of either failing or dying?
Is it trying to say that the only way to survive is to fail in your task?

Its trying to say to give us more money and go out there and work harder than you are to recruit more people to give us more money or you die at Armageddon. Like a slave driver. But sooooo subtle.

 

[Syne]

So the JW parable is one of either failing or dying?
Is it trying to say that the only way to survive is to fail in your task?

Who said a donkey would be concerned, in the least, with making the delivery? That's much more anthropomorphism than the parable implied.

 

[gmilam]

Its trying to say to give us more money and go out there and work harder than you are to recruit more people to give us more money or you die at Armageddon. Like a slave driver. But sooooo subtle.

Where's the "like" button?

 

[Balerion]

Who said a donkey would be concerned, in the least, with making the delivery? That's much more anthropomorphism than the parable implied.

Do you find it shocking that so many people are struggling with such a simple parable?

 

[Sarkus]

Who said a donkey would be concerned, in the least, with making the delivery? That's much more anthropomorphism than the parable implied.

Then the parable must surely be about how it is unwise to take baskets of sugar and cotton across a river? Or to rely on donkeys that are too short-legged that the goods get wet?

The point of my facetious initial response was because the parable was poor in trying to get the desired message across.
Yes, one could argue the "path of least resistance" led to the donkey's demise in the river... but had there been no river then the donkey that took the cotton would be laughing and the other donkey would be in dire straits, possibly dying from exhaustion. Thus limiting the supposed point of the parable to a gamble - death by exhaustion or death by drowning.

The point of the story seems to be that the shortcuts you take now can be your downfall later. That's a good lesson.

There were no shortcuts taken... one donkey HAD to take the sugar, the other HAD to take the cotton. One donkey dies.
Surely the donkey that clearly sacrifices himself by taking the cotton should be praised and lauded for his obvious altruism?

But that clearly wasn't the point of the parable. The point was to show how choosing the easiest path can hurt you in the long run.

Any path can hurt you in the long run. It can also reward you. It's part of the condition of life.

The "parable" might also have said that the donkey taking the sugar stumbled and died from the weight they were carrying and no mention of a river... thus concluding "Choosing the hardest path can hurt you in the long run."


The parable, given its stated aim in the OP, sucks.

 

[Balerion]

There were no shortcuts taken... one donkey HAD to take the sugar, the other HAD to take the cotton. One donkey dies.
Surely the donkey that clearly sacrifices himself by taking the cotton should be praised and lauded for his obvious altruism?

Of course there was a shortcut taken. The one donkey immediately selects the cotton, believing it to be the easier assignment. Neither donkey is aware that they will be crossing a body of water, obviously, or the "lazy" donkey wouldn't have chosen the cotton.

Any path can hurt you in the long run. It can also reward you. It's part of the condition of life.

Anything can happen to anyone at any time. But that's not a meaningful or useful lesson. The lesson being taught here--that taking the easy path is not always the easiest path in the long run--is a noble and worthwhile one. I mean, think of the ways it could be applied. Going to drop out of school? That's the easy path now, but in the long run it bites you in the ass. Going to turn down that promotion because it will increase your workload? Well, you may lose the respect of your superiors, or you might be forced to rent for the rest of your life as opposed to buying a house with that nice salary increase you turned down. Want to keep doing drugs because it's easier than rehab? Well, okay, that seems easy now, but when your teeth begin to loosen and your fingers turn black and fall off, you'll wish you checked in.

The "parable" might also have said that the donkey taking the sugar stumbled and died from the weight they were carrying and no mention of a river... thus concluding "Choosing the hardest path can hurt you in the long run."

But what would be the lesson there? Take the easy way out? Yeah, that's not a dangerous message...

The parable, given its stated aim in the OP, sucks.

No, you just need to understand it.

 

[Sarkus]

Of course there was a shortcut taken. The one donkey immediately selects the cotton, believing it to be the easier assignment. Neither donkey is aware that they will be crossing a body of water, obviously, or the "lazy" donkey wouldn't have chosen the cotton.

Then it's clearly not a shortcut.
A shortcut is a concious choice made to shorten a path... the decision to make a shortcut can thus only be made when the destination is known.
Otherwise it is merely a choice, made with all the relevant information available.

The lesson being taught here--that taking the easy path is not always the easiest path in the long run--is a noble and worthwhile one.

I understand the message, and I don't disagree with the idea - but the parable sucks: it is simply not very good at getting the message across... due primarily to the specific nature of the obstacle by which the "easy path" is made non-easy.

But what would be the lesson there? Take the easy way out? Yeah, that's not a dangerous message...

The point I am making is that the parable is weak because of the way it is structured, and how the "easy path" is only negated by a rather specific obstacle, rather than being inherently adverse to one's future.
I will say it again - the parable sucks.
The message intended might be "noble" - but the parable still sucks.

No, you just need to understand it.

I understand the intended message - I just consider the means of conveying it to suck.

 

[Michael]

The lessons seems to be

- you should be hard working
- Taking what seems like the easy way now may not work out because who the frack knows what's going to happen in the future

I really think it's just trying to tell children to be hardworkers. It's not a very good story to me. I'm sure there are better parables for this in the Bible???

 

[Balerion]

Then it's clearly not a shortcut.
A shortcut is a concious choice made to shorten a path... the decision to make a shortcut can thus only be made when the destination is known.
Otherwise it is merely a choice, made with all the relevant information available.

And the relevant information was "One is heavy, one is light." Choosing the light load is the easy choice. The shortcut. The path of least resistance.

I understand the message, and I don't disagree with the idea - but the parable sucks: it is simply not very good at getting the message across... due primarily to the specific nature of the obstacle by which the "easy path" is made non-easy

"Non-easy" is a terribly awkward way of saying "difficult."

The parable is very effective, your opinion notwithstanding. The part with which you object is precisely what makes the parable work: the easy path is chosen, and then there is a new obstacle which makes the initial decision regrettable.

What could possibly be wrong with this?

The point I am making is that the parable is weak because of the way it is structured, and how the "easy path" is only negated by a rather specific obstacle, rather than being inherently adverse to one's future.
I will say it again - the parable sucks.

That's what makes it a parable! The easy path itself is a very specific condition: the choice of the cotton rather than the sugar. You simple take the message of the story and relate it to your own situation, as I demonstrated in my previous post.

The message intended might be "noble" - but the parable still sucks.
I understand the intended message - I just consider the means of conveying it to suck.

Well then that's your hang-up. If you don't understand how a metaphor works, that's not anyone's problem but your own.