Here’s the link to the article that came from if you’d like to see it, although I think it’s pretty close to the exact same thing.
I know you’re talking to Jim, so I apologize for continuing to butt in, but I don’t seem to be able to help myself. And since I feel like my last illustration was validated, I feel okay with offering another.
I don’t have a picture to offer, though I suppose I could sketch something, but with the car example it helps me to imagine the desire for a car and the ability to buy a car as sitting on opposite ends of a balance beam. If you have no desire and no ability, or if you have both the desire and the ability, they are balanced. If you have the desire but not the ability, then one side goes up and the other down. Doesn’t matter which one goes which way. They are both out of balance. The inequity isn’t anything between the two or the balance beam they are on, but their new positions relative to one another. The fact that they are no longer in line is the inequity, or the imbalance.
So to resolve the inequity, you can place yourself even with one process and try to bring the other process in line with the one you’ve chosen. If you pick ability, then you have to bring your desires in line with your ability. Start desiring a cheaper car or get rid of the desire altogether. Both are valid options bring a desire for a new car in line with an inability to purchase the desired car.
If you place yourself with desire, then you have to bring your ability to purchase the car in line with your desire to own it. This is where you need more money to change your inability to buy a car to an ability. And that’s where needing a job and going to school and otherwise building up the justifications you’ve illustrated come into the picture.
So going back to what I was saying before, you can’t say that there’s something between wanting a car and being able to afford a car that both sides are looking at and that can be described as the inequity at the heart of it (the linchpin idea). Rather, the imbalance between them is the inequity and the statement “I want a car but can’t afford one” approximates that imbalance to your audience. Now add two more processes (Knowledge and Thought) to quadrangulate the problem and your audience starts getting a pretty good idea of the shape of the inequity at the heart of the story.
Now that said, I am clearly not an expert and that “visual illustration” of the balance beam is just what helps me to see it.