We think too much. And do too less. No issues. Until we start thinking too much about thinking. About doing. About us. About others. Ohoh… Others. I smell trouble.
Long long ago, when the tribes were small and tasks were simple, every person would have been the best at something[1] Most probably. I need an actual source to confirm this . Killing, one got it. Finding berries, another one. Painting the cave walls, someone’s there for it. Sitting and wondering why they even had to live through their lives – there must’ve been a person for that – one had it. And then tribes mixed. Ohoh…
I love comparison. And I hate comparison. Comparison is the killjoy. Alas, I’m human, a social creature. Asking one to stop doing what they are programmed for to navigate a life they weren’t prepared for is too much, isn’t it? We can’t change is our basal nature. What we can change is our thinking. Well, this was what got us into this bubbling trouble.
The star of today’s show is the binary tree. It’s gonna teach us how to compare better. *Applause*.
We simplify life into a bell curve. Easy to reference, easy to use, easy to handle. And then we simplify the bell curve into a binary tree. Simplifying it to a ternary tree is more appropriate. But, let’s shoot for the lower end – pessimistic case.
A normal distribution a.k.a The Bell Curve is characterized by a simple formula k1ek2x, a quality that ~68% is within one standard deviation and ~27% is within two standard deviations and there’s the rest beyond. Additionally, mean = median = mode. Hmm. This is where I have an issue. I don’t see that in real life. You know what I see? Hierarchy.
For my hypothesis, I decided to squish the entire lower half into a single section. Remove the constants, change e to 2 and we have a binary tree! And for our population, let’s start with a simple 211 which is roughly 2000. 1 below average and 10 above, with the 11th being the mode when ranked by the nodes. However, when we talk levels, the average is the 6th level.
From the model, there are a few points to be noted:
1. There’s only one level below average and one above it. 50% people = 1 level.
2. Halfway through is almost all the people. 50% levels = 98% people.
Now, it’s easy to see why we compare and why it doesn’t work. 11 levels is not too far ahead to see but it’s the farthest level from the first. And in a diverse mix of people, it’s possible to have the best in the group. Being better than average w.r.t. people isn’t being better than averagely w.r.t. skills. Take a moment to process that[2]https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000580. Disappointing.
So, how can we compare better?
- Ask ‘Is it even important?’. Weed out 90% of the useless thoughts!
- Give yourself a level number. You need to know where you stand.
- Figure out the level where you want to be. It’s hard to know how good you want to get without knowing which level it is at. Sometimes, something which looks achievable might be out of reach at the moment.
- When you find comparing yourself to someone, level them! Duh!
- If it’s more than a level(both directions), say ‘Bye Bye!‘. The skill might be achievable. But we are not trying to achieve better, we are trying to compare better. A better comparison will not only lead to better improvement of the skill but also an improvement in how you feel, about yourself and your skill. Similarly, comparing downwards is self-preservation, doesn’t help much in growth.
Thoughts
- Why do we even compare?
Best question ever! It’s easy to go with the flow and compare when we see differences. If you can see differences, you can compare. So, it’s ingrained. When we are trying to do something, and we are bad at judging with the skill standards, we end up comparing to others, especially whom we perceive to be closer. In terms of goal setting, comparison is mostly useless, but know how to compare will definitely help in knowing where you stand, both w.r.t. external criteria as well as yourself. - What do we compare?
Sometimes topics close to us, sometimes, they mean nothing. I believe it’s ok to compare as long as we see what we are capable of rather than what can’t do. And it’s definitely more noticable than comparing to the past you who doesn’t exist anymore. And sometimes, it matters, in most professional settings like school and work! - How do you rank a person?
Surprisingly, unlike the distribution of people, skillset is linear! The actual rank of a person is more complex because it also involves other factors like the quality of work. So, horizonatally, you compare for quality a.k.a. how well one can execute something. Vertically you compare for the quantity a.k.a the number of skills a person is better at. It should also be noted both quality and quantity cannot be reached to a 100%. So it’s important to have a passing grade, something either externally decided or left to you. - What level to aim for?
Hahahahaha. I don’t know. You should! - Is every level worth one level worth of effort?
I will stand to my word here, yes! Since effort can both time and thought. Sometimes, things take time, no matter what. Sometimes, you have to push yourself harder, mentally or physically. Finding an exit takes a lot of deadends. The route itself remains the same. The effort you put in might change on your efficiency[3]I’m a lover of efficiency. If I can, I will write about that sometime!. It’s faster in the beginning since it’s a trodden path you follow. As long as you know where you want to go, you’ll know what to do. - Can one be the best at something?
Maybe, Maybe not. Does it matter? If yes, you not only need to rank yourself where you are right now, but where you can absolutely get to. If that is far less than the current highest, improbable. However, one can absolutely destroy what they thought to be their best. In the real world, there are only 33 levels![4]If you consider the model to be fairly accurate
References
| ↑1 | Most probably. I need an actual source to confirm this |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000580 |
| ↑3 | I’m a lover of efficiency. If I can, I will write about that sometime! |
| ↑4 | If you consider the model to be fairly accurate |