The Common Man in an Uncommon World
Look around you and ask yourself how many things around you are completely beyond your ability to comprehend or understand. Take everyday objects -- televisions, mp3 players, cars, computers, etc. -- things that you take for granted, and think for a moment about how much you really know about them. Would even be able to explain some of the simple concepts that drive these things? These things are all made by people and yet they're so far out of the reach of the common person. I'm sure all of this has occurred to many people before, but this is just my take on it.
The bell curve above is the general human population IQ distribution. The average person has an IQ of 100. And yet, it seems as if so much of this world has been designed, researched, engineered, and created by people to the far right of the distribution. On top of that, the kind of enormous specialization that occurs these days in each field of science and technology as well as politics, literature, law, etc. further increases the division between the common man and the pioneers of our species. Only a small sliver of us actually pushes the world forward, actually makes the breakthroughs and innovations and takes the whole species along with it, while the rest, the vast majority are simple the consumers and sustainers: we use what the creative elite give us and we help by doing the things that keeps society functioning at status quo.
I just think it's strange to think that average people get to share in the benefits of the few extraordinary creative pioneers without having a clue about how anything works. Everything just keeps getting more complex and more complicated that it seems hopeless to try to understand all the things that we as a species are doing to change the world around us, to fight against nature and create for ourselves a new world with our own sense of justice and morality. And I guess that's just fine and all, but will we ever get to a point where the average person has essentially no idea how anything works?
Here's one way I think of it. Given the average person's intelligence and education, how much of today's world could he replicate on his own without anybody else's help? Could he make a computer? Doubtful. How about a light bulb or even a pencil? The difference between what he can do and what he cannot is what I think of as the current gap in society between what each of us knows and what we all know in aggregate. Does the increasing size of this gap have any significance? Is it possibly a bad thing or is it just fine as it is?
2 comments:
This is an interesting point, but an unimportant one. Who really knows how an MP3 player works? An electrical engineer? A computer programmer?
Okay, but what about all the other people in society with high IQs? The professors? The doctors? The fortune-500 CEOs? They surely have no clue how most of the technology they use each and everyday works--from their Lexuses to the operating room microscope. If you must say that the majority of the country leeches off the intelligent "pioneers," then the intelligent pioneers also leech off the intelligent pioneers.
Sure, of course, every pioneer builds on the work of others. But the idea I'm really driving at is a differentiation between the pioneers and this other term that I always wrestle with: the masses. I would say top-notch professors, doctors, CEOs, etc. fall under the category of pioneers. They are the ones directly contributing to progress. But it must be obvious that there are those who almost certainly fall under the category of "the masses". I won't name any particular professions or, god forbid, individuals, but I think we all know what I mean.
For an analogy, look at the age-old differentiation between capitalists and laborers. You can argue about the actual theory, but the model works well in this case. The capitalists are the ones that are carrying the nation forward. Pure labor is necessary but it only keeps the system going. At the same time, Smith says that it's not enough to just keep the system going. Progress, positive change, is a necessity to him. But that discussion is for some other time.
So let's say there is such a distinction between the pioneers and the masses. Then there must be some rough ratio between the two groups. The question then follows: is this the best ratio for progress? Could we progress even faster if, say, we had an even greater proportion of pioneers? How many sacrifices do we have to make in the name of equality and democracy before we can really focus on progress? Or are equality and democracy absolutely crucial for progress? Or is progress defined by increased equality--Durkheim's idea that the mission of all advanced civilizations is a mission for justice and the elimination of external inequality?
Post a Comment