Summary

The article discusses the misconception that larger event participation automatically leads to fewer problems and more resources, arguing instead that challenges scale with size and that giving is a prerequisite to receiving.

Abstract

The author reflects on a conversation with a friend about the challenges of organizing running events, specifically the belief that having more participants leads to fewer problems and greater sponsorship opportunities. The author disagrees, citing the principle that "there is no such thing as a free lunch," suggesting that larger events simply bring larger problems. The author emphasizes that success requires hard work and that one must give more to receive more, drawing parallels to Newton's Third Law of Motion and the First Law of Thermodynamics. The article concludes with the assertion that solving problems that competitors do not is key to advancing in any field, and that this requires a cycle of growth in skills, experience, and the complexity of problems faced.

Opinions

The author believes that the idea of larger numbers of participants reducing event problems is absurd, positing that challenges increase in proportion to the size of the event.
The author is a proponent of the "no such thing as a free lunch" principle, implying that nothing of value comes without effort or sacrifice.
The article suggests that expecting more participants and better event quality without providing additional value is unrealistic.
The author uses physical laws, such as Newton's Third Law and the First Law of Thermodynamics, as metaphors to explain that every action has a reaction and that energy and resources must be invested to yield results.
The author is open to having their perspective challenged and invites thoughts and comments to refine their understanding of the dynamics of event organization and success.
The author questions the existence of unsolvable problems, hinting at a belief that all problems are

TRYING2️⃣UNDERSTAND

How Giving Begets Receiving

Like Taking does to Losing

I spoke with a friend the other day about organizing a running event. He claimed that it’s hard to organize an event with only a few hundred participants.

He consulted an experienced professional who told him that when the number will rise to 1000, half the problems will disappear. Supposedly, many doors will open, particularly to sponsors.

I instantly disagreed, arguing with my favorite quote that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I firmly believe that no matter at what level you are, you have to face and overcome problems relative to that level. There are no shortcuts or easy ways. Large(r) numbers create large(r) problems. More resources, more problems to solve. Generally, it never gets much out of balance in that context.

He thought that what I am saying is absurd. “You must undoubtedly be wrong,” he claimed, “because, with more participants, you have more and better sponsors and more resources to run the event.”

“OK,” I said, “so when you get a large number of participants, sponsors will flee to you, and your budget will grow insanely? When you have 1000 participants, sponsors will give you tons of money, never require anything more for that, and participants will keep coming without you doing much more for them?”

Sure, and then you’ll wake up with your left foot in a night jar and a slipper in your mouth.

Similar patterns can be frequently spotted worldwide. Successful stories just don’t read like that. Superficially, yes. But in detail, there is much more hard work (to be done) to get paid more.

What can I say? It’s my favorite proverb (re)appearing all over again:

“No such thing as a free lunch.”

Or explained with Newton’s Third Law of Motion:

‘For every action (force) there is an equal and opposite reaction.’

…or perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics (simplified):

‘Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.’

By studying Systems Theory and Thinking, I realized that you cannot get more by not giving more. And from (a lot of) personal experience:

‘If you want to receive something, you have to start by giving.’

The opposite would be like expecting a headache to disappear if you promise to rest later.

In simple terms of my friend’s dilemma about organizing events:

You cannot expect to first get more participants for giving (or promising) them something later. You always have to start by giving. You take the risk and jump into the murky waters.

His reply to that was: “I can’t afford that!”

“OK, but then you can’t hope for the participants’ numbers and event quality to grow.”

From my perspective, it seems quite simple:

In the organizing events, or any area for that matter, you are (always) at a certain level. At that level, everyone has a similar number of participants, a similarly-defined quality, and similar problems. And a competition that is in a very similar situation.

If you solve one of the problems that your competitors don’t, you advance. If/when you solve more (enough) problems (that they don’t), all three (four) factors improve:

The amount of participants rises,
the quality of the events rises,
and also the complexity of problems.

The fourth rising factor (that cannot be excluded) is your skills or experience level.

That last one is required to move to the next level. And there, the growth cycle starts all over again.

But, as I always doubt my perspective and beliefs, I would be hugely grateful for any thoughts and comments to test, improve, and/or correct my standpoints. What are your thoughts on it?

Thinking about this one thought slipped my mind. Do unsolvable problems even exist? Or is that impossible by the sheer definition of a problem?

‘What Is a Problem?’