Personality Cafe banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
ENTP type 8w5
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How does an average man view his life in comparison to those who are above average, in terms of wealth, fame, social life, talents, intellect, physique, etc.. how does the average man view those with the potential to be above average? I have more reason to believe the view is mostly negative for what reason does an average person have to encourage or support someone else to have a better life than him, only to end up settling for what’s less or lesser. Being content for what’s less is a delusion for most of the average people if not all, which explains why some put others down as miserly loves company, envy is a strong emotion that masks itself as rational, for some it might be rational, either we are all special or we are all not, no one wants to be left out or not included and this ties to the fact we only live once and the clock is ticking, I find the average man to be the biggest threat to social harmony but from their view I could see above average men to be the threat
 

·
Registered
INFP
Joined
·
75 Posts
How does an average man view his life in comparison to those who are above average, in terms of wealth, fame, social life, talents, intellect, physique, etc.. how does the average man view those with the potential to be above average? [...snipped]
I think it's a non-issue. As an average dude myself, I look at Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Mick Jagger or Lady Gaga or Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or whoever, and I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other.

I wouldn't want to be like them, because I don't want to devote my life to working as hard as they have. I don't particularly wish them harm, because they occupy a totally different world from me and ruining their lives wouldn't really benefit me. (And some of them actually benefit the world with their products.) I also don't particularly feel obliged to come to their aid when they run into trouble--I don't figure there's much I can do to help them. I'm just a small-time average dude.

There's a power differential, of course. But they have powerful opponents and opposition parties and watchdog groups and government regulatory agencies dogging them every step of the way. Whereas I have to deal with bosses or clients dogging me at work or troubles with local cops or petty financial concerns or whatever. So in the end we all have our various challenges to face in life.

So it's just kind of a non-issue. They have their world, and I have mine.
 

·
The spirit of the spirits
Joined
·
10,957 Posts
No, there's no point in that. People want to look up to someone way above average to know what ideals to seek. Reality sucks, everyone lives in some kind of delusion, thus everyone wants delusion to be as good as it could be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
It's not averageness itself that causes the problems, but a particular response to being average: envy isn't an inescapable result of being average, it's a result of an inflated ego that can't accept reality. In fact, this isn't just limited to average people... coming to terms with our limitations is something we all have to deal with, including people who are exceptional: even if they excel in comparison to other people, they still have limitations and may not live up to an idealized image of themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
Ever hear of the hedonic treadmill? No matter what you have, or how good you are, it's taken as a default. If you're so inclined by personality to be envious, if you start out rich, you'll envy the richer. If you have honed all kind of leet skillz, you'll be focused on who can do things you can't do, or focus on that one thing you can't do well. The mind normalizes so that you're always average, no matter what you have or what you've done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,855 Posts
I don't know whether you are talking about men specifically or people in general. The latter is kind of dickish. Anyways, damn near everything is geared towards average people because they are the majority and run/determine how things should be run. So yes, people continually think about average people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Average man




Todd Rose: When U.S. Air Force Discovered the Flaw of Averages

In the late 1940s, the United States air force had a serious problem: its pilots could not keep control of their planes. Although this was the dawn of jet-powered aviation and the planes were faster and more complicated to fly, the problems were so frequent and involved so many different aircraft that the air force had an alarming, life-or-death mystery on its hands. “It was a difficult time to be flying,” one retired airman told me. “You never knew if you were going to end up in the dirt.” At its worst point, 17 pilots crashed in a single day.

The two government designations for these noncombat mishaps were incidents and accidents, and they ranged from unintended dives and bungled landings to aircraft-obliterating fatalities. At first, the military brass pinned the blame on the men in the cockpits, citing “pilot error” as the most common reason in crash reports. This judgment certainly seemed reasonable, since the planes themselves seldom malfunctioned. Engineers confirmed this time and again, testing the mechanics and electronics of the planes and finding no defects. Pilots, too, were baffled. The only thing they knew for sure was that their piloting skills were not the cause of the problem. If it wasn’t human or mechanical error, what was it?

After multiple inquiries ended with no answers, officials turned their attention to the design of the cockpit itself. Back in 1926, when the army was designing its first-ever cockpit, engineers had measured the physical dimensions of hundreds of male pilots (the possibility of female pilots was never a serious consideration), and used this data to standardize the dimensions of the cockpit. For the next three decades, the size and shape of the seat, the distance to the pedals and stick, the height of the windshield, even the shape of the flight helmets were all built to conform to the average dimensions of a 1926 pilot.

Now military engineers began to wonder if the pilots had gotten bigger since 1926. To obtain an updated assessment of pilot dimensions, the air force authorized the largest study of pilots that had ever been undertaken. In 1950, researchers at Wright Air Force Base in Ohio measured more than 4,000 pilots on 140 dimensions of size, including thumb length, crotch height, and the distance from a pilot’s eye to his ear, and then calculated the average for each of these dimensions. Everyone believed this improved calculation of the average pilot would lead to a better-fitting cockpit and reduce the number of crashes — or almost everyone. One newly hired 23-year-old scientist had doubts.

Lt. Gilbert S. Daniels was not the kind of person you would normally associate with the testosterone-drenched culture of aerial combat. He was slender and wore glasses. He liked flowers and landscaping and in high school was president of the Botanical Garden Club. When he joined the Aero Medical Laboratory at Wright Air Force Base straight out of college, he had never even been in a plane before. But it didn’t matter. As a junior researcher, his job was to measure pilots’ limbs with a tape measure.

It was not the first time Daniels had measured the human body. The Aero Medical Laboratory hired Daniels because he had majored in physical anthropology, a field that specialized in the anatomy of humans, as an undergraduate at Harvard. During the first half of the 20th century, this field focused heavily on trying to classify the personalities of groups of people according to their average body shapes — a practice known as “typing.” For example, many physical anthropologists believed a short and heavy body was indicative of a merry and fun-loving personality, while receding hairlines and fleshy lips reflected a “criminal type.”

Daniels was not interested in typing, however. Instead, his undergraduate thesis consisted of a rather plodding comparison of the shape of 250 male Harvard students’ hands. The students Daniels examined were from very similar ethnic and socio-cultural backgrounds (namely, white and wealthy), but, unexpectedly, their hands were not similar at all. Even more surprising, when Daniels averaged all his data, the average hand did not resemble any individual’s measurements. There was no such thing as an average hand size. “When I left Harvard, it was clear to me that if you wanted to design something for an individual human being, the average was completely useless,” Daniels told me.

So when the air force put him to work measuring pilots, Daniels harboured a private conviction about averages that rejected almost a century of military design philosophy. As he sat in the Aero Medical Laboratory measuring hands, legs, waists and foreheads, he kept asking himself the same question in his head: How many pilots really were average?

He decided to find out. Using the size data he had gathered from 4,063 pilots, Daniels calculated the average of the 10 physical dimensions believed to be most relevant for design, including height, chest circumference and sleeve length. These formed the dimensions of the “average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle 30 per cent of the range of values for each dimension. So, for example, even though the precise average height from the data was five foot nine, he defined the height of the “average pilot” as ranging from five-seven to five-11. Next, Daniels compared each individual pilot, one by one, to the average pilot.

Before he crunched his numbers, the consensus among his fellow air force researchers was that the vast majority of pilots would be within the average range on most dimensions. After all, these pilots had already been pre-selected because they appeared to be average sized. (If you were, say, six foot seven, you would never have been recruited in the first place.) The scientists also expected that a sizable number of pilots would be within the average range on all 10 dimensions. But even Daniels was stunned when he tabulated the actual number.

Zero.

Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions. One pilot might have a longer-than-average arm length, but a shorter-than-average leg length. Another pilot might have a big chest but small hips. Even more astonishing, Daniels discovered that if you picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size — say, neck circumference, thigh circumference and wrist circumference — less than 3.5 per cent of pilots would be average sized on all three dimensions. Daniels’s findings were clear and incontrovertible. There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you’ve designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you’ve actually designed it to fit no one.

Daniels’ revelation was the kind of big idea that could have ended one era of basic assumptions about individuality and launched a new one. But even the biggest of ideas requires the correct interpretation. We like to believe that facts speak for themselves, but they most assuredly do not. After all, Gilbert Daniels was not the first person to discover there was no such thing as an average person.



Daniels’ interpretation was the exact opposite. “The tendency to think in terms of the ‘average man’ is a pitfall into which many persons blunder,” Daniels wrote in 1952. “It is virtually impossible to find an average airman not because of any unique traits in this group but because of the great variability of bodily dimensions which is characteristic of all men.”

Rather than suggesting that people should strive harder to conform to an artificial ideal of normality, Daniels’ analysis led him to a counterintuitive conclusion that serves as the cornerstone of this book: any system designed around the average person is doomed to fail.

Daniels published his findings in a 1952 Air Force Technical Note entitled The “Average Man”? In it, he contended that if the military wanted to improve the performance of its soldiers, including its pilots, it needed to change the design of any environments in which those soldiers were expected to perform. The recommended change was radical: the environments needed to fit the individual rather than the average.

Amazingly — and to their credit — the air force embraced Daniels’ arguments. “The old air force designs were all based on finding pilots who were similar to the average pilot,” Daniels explained to me. “But once we showed them the average pilot was a useless concept, they were able to focus on fitting the cockpit to the individual pilot. That’s when things started getting better.”

By discarding the average as their reference standard, the air force initiated a quantum leap in its design philosophy, centred on a new guiding principle: individual fit. Rather than fitting the individual to the system, the military began fitting the system to the individual. In short order, the air force demanded that all cockpits needed to fit pilots whose measurements fell within the 5-per-cent to 95-per-cent range on each dimension.

When airplane manufacturers first heard this new mandate, they balked, insisting it would be too expensive and take years to solve the relevant engineering problems. But the military refused to budge, and then — to everyone’s surprise — aeronautical engineers rather quickly came up with solutions that were both cheap and easy to implement. They designed adjustable seats, technology now standard in all automobiles. They created adjustable foot pedals. They developed adjustable helmet straps and flight suits.

Once these and other design solutions were put into place, pilot performance soared, and the U.S. air force became the most dominant air force on the planet. Soon, every branch of the American military published guides decreeing that equipment should fit a wide range of body sizes, instead of standardized around the average.

Why was the military willing to make such a radical change so quickly? Because changing the system was not an intellectual exercise — it was a practical solution to an urgent problem. When pilots flying faster than the speed of sound were required to perform tough manoeuvres using a complex array of controls, they couldn’t afford to have a gauge just out of view or a switch barely out of reach. In a setting where split-second decisions meant the difference between life and death, pilots were forced to perform in an environment that was already stacked against them.

L. Todd Rose: The End of Average (2016)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,481 Posts
how does the average man view those with the potential to be above average? I have more reason to believe the view is mostly negative for what reason does an average person have to encourage or support someone else to have a better life than him, only to end up settling for what’s less or lesser
It mostly matters for the average men that someone unlike them doesn't achieve their dreams.

The average men want to see it achieved by someone they can identify with, more than to achieve it themselves. Not only dreaming about it tricks the brain into a neurochemical state of achievement, it also nullifies the risk of failing and disappointing oneself.

Typically, those who want to be rich would rather be poor than to forbid wealth, as long as they can identify with the one who lives a great life at their expense. That's how Trump and such are being elected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
The average man thinks he is everything but average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skimt

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
It's all about perspective. What's average to one person can be great to another. I think that's why people who think they're above others are so insecure. They think that everyone is envious of them, which is a delusion in itself.

That's why you see billionaires who are always unsatiated. They want to compete with Chinese Trillionaires (or potentially so- it's easier to become a trillionaire in China). Thus, we see all of these corruptions done at the expense of the "Average Joe." And, we all know it's wrong, and we all know it's delusional to "compare" ourselves to others, when we all have our own strengths talents to be cherished.

It's not about competition, or one-upping or being "better." It's all about how we all contribute to life on this planet the best we can. We all have our own gifts and talents, and we all desire to express it. But some people feel the need to control others in order to stay afloat.

In reality, we're all drifting in life in the direction that makes most sense to us. So to compare ourselves with others, is a ridiculous notion. There's no point in "keeping up with the Jones's."

It's ALL about what we came here to do, to fulfill our wildest dreams, even if it's something as simple as making someone else smile- simple gestures of kindness, humanity.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top