As mentioned in the Introduction, our overall framework begins with two assumptions, and a conclusion driven from those assumptions, to establish the On The Ball Theory.
If some people are "on the ball", then by definition, there must be others who are not on the ball, and we can divided them into two groups
This seems fairly straightforward. For argument's sake, let's agree that being on the ball is a good thing (something that people desire), and not being on the ball is less desirable.
And while we can debate whether the exact split of these two is 50/50, 70/30, or 90/10, it is fair to say that 100% do not exist on just one side.
While some people are aware there is a "ball to be on", there must be others who do not know the ball exists.
This assumption might not be as obvious, and we'll get into more details with The Ball and Awareness, but the notion of "a ball" is not a given. Not everyone is aware that the ball, albeit a metaphor, is out there. As with the first assumption, let's also agree that knowing the ball exists is a good thing, whereas not knowing the ball exists is a bad thing.
And as with Assumption #1, the breakdown of how people split into the two groups changes constantly, but by definition, 100% of people cannot know the ball exists.
Therefore, if you believe the first two assumptions to be true, you can conclude that four categories result from their intersection, ranging from desirable to less desirable states.
As a result, the On The Ball Theory simply states that all people must all into one of these four groups:
We'll refer to these groups as 1's, 2's, 3's, and 4's respectively, and explore them in much greater detail in Quadrants. The Theory does not state which quadrant any of us will be in at a given time, nor does it state that we are destined for one and only one quadrant. However, the framework that supports the On The Ball Theory does help us understand how we move from box to box.