August 3, 2024

The End of Average

My top 30 points:

Our system of judging people according to their deviation from the mean (faster, slower, stronger, weaker) is smothering our talents. The sweeping generalizations of averagarians cannot but gloss over the multifaceted nature of an individual.

The effect is pernicious in the extreme. Schools, for instance, rate pupils largely on their ability to learn faster than the average, and design curriculums to suit the speediest. Yet learning slowly does not preclude a student from ultimately mastering a subject.

The system must fit the individual, not vice versa. The shining example is of Gilbert Daniels, whose research in the 1950s persuaded the US air force to make planes with adjustable cockpit controls that pilots of all shapes and sizes could fly more safely.

It is not that the average is never useful. Averages have their place. If you’re comparing two different groups of people, like comparing the performance of Chilean pilots with French pilots—as opposed to comparing two individuals from each of those groups—then the average can be useful. But the moment you need to make a decision about any individual—the average is useless.

From the cradle to the grave, you are measured against the ever-present yardstick of the average, judged according to how closely you approximate it or how far you are able to exceed it.

Most of us know intuitively that a score on a personality test, a rank on a standardized assessment, a grade point average, or a rating on a performance review doesn’t reflect your, or your child’s, or your students’, or your employees’ abilities. Yet the concept of average as a yardstick for measuring individuals has been so thoroughly ingrained in our minds that we rarely question it seriously.

Our modern conception of the average person is not a mathematical truth but a human invention, created a century and a half ago by two European scientists to solve the social problems of their era.

The very idea of “average,” is a human invention born of the Industrial Age and its needs, and no longer fits today’s reality or our current challenges.

The original idea of average was developed by Quetelet in the early 1840s. He saw ‘Average Man’ as perfection and almost God like. “Everything differing from the Average Man’s proportions and condition, would constitute deformity and disease.” Quetelet’s invention of the ‘Average Man’ marked the beginning of the Age of Average. It represented the moment when the average became normal, the individual became error and stereotypes were validated with the imprint of science.

For the concept of Average, what came after Quetelet arguably did even more harm to the individual. Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, was the founder of the racist pseudoscience known as Eugenics. Where Quetelet saw deviations above and below average as equal, Galton suggested being above average was superior.

From Galton, we entered a stage of history driven by Taylorism, named after Fredrick Taylor. What Taylor managed to do shifted the world as we knew it. As per Taylor “In the past, man was first… in the future the system must be first.” The business world readily embrace Taylorism as a way of making factories more efficient which fed beautifully into a Capitalist world view.

Edward Thorndike, an early educational psychologist, extended the Taylorist view to the western education system with standardized tests and paces for learning. He believed that faster learners were smarter than slower learners, reinforcing the notion of fixed learning paces. This flawed assumption has led to a system that penalizes students who learn at their own pace, potentially hindering their potential.

Benjamin Bloom, a renowned educational researcher, challenged Thorndike’s misconception in the 1980s. His study demonstrated that students who were allowed to learn at their own pace achieved remarkable results, regardless of their initial perceived abilities.

In 1924, the American journalist H. L. Mencken summarized the state of the educational system: “The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.”

The Jaggedness Principle tells us that, to understand a person, we must capture their unique multi-dimensional profile. Our minds have a natural tendency to use one dimensional scale to think about complex human traits like size, intelligence character or talent. One dimensional thinking fails when applied to just about any individual quality that actually matters.

The Context Principle tells us that people are not essentialist. We are not essentially one thing or another. It helps us understand that, the way someone behaves or interacts with the world, always depends on both who they are and the situation they are in. This means that the assumption that our personality traits are stable is faulty.

This combination of person and place result in what Rose calls, If — Then signatures. It is not particularly useful to say Jack is extroverted. IF Jack is in the classroom, THEN he is extroverted. IF Jack is in a room of strangers, THEN he is mildly extroverted. IF Jack is stressed THEN he is very introverted.

The Pathway Principle challenges us to consider the divergent paths to succeeding in the learning game. If we dispel the idea that life or learning follows linear, uniform trajectories, we are able to embrace that. In all aspects of our lives and for any goal, there are many equally valid ways to reach the same outcome.

So how do we know what is the right path for ourselves or guide the children in our care? The only way to judge if we are on the right path is by judging how the path fits our individuality. There will always be more than one pathway available to you.

By creating a work environment that values and encourages individuality, companies can tap into the full potential of their employees, leading to increased creativity, innovation, and productivity. It can result in a more inclusive, diverse, and effective workplace. It’s time to move away from the notion of an “average” employee and embrace the individuality of each person in the workplace.

Whereas Walmart’s mastery of Taylorist efficiency has produced one of the largest and most robust enterprises in history, Costco has generated more returns post IPO than Walmart, while paying staff 75 % more, providing industry-topping benefits and the ability to quickly move up. They hire for attributes like industriousness by recruiting students from local colleges to work part-time, and then promoting from within, rather than “hiring graduates from famous universities.” They are now the third largest retailer in the US. Individual Costco employees are far more productive than those at Walmart & Costco employees rarely leave the company.