Uniqueness is a big deal. Mathematicians are ecstatic to find that there exists a unique solution to a problem, biologists love to try finding unique pathways to various diseases, and product managers work to make their brand as unique as possible. "Of which there is only one; one and no other" is the OED's first definition, encompassing the existence and the solitary nature.
Counselors often say "everyone is unique" as though it ought to make someone feel better about themselves; interestingly, it usually does. Somehow, the very thought of being different is highly gratifying to the self-esteem, in spite of all the effort we put in to be just like everyone else.
It's certainly true, of course, that no two people are exactly the same, but why is this inherently a good thing? I believe it stems from people substituting another definition of unique: irreplaceable. That is, "everyone is unique" translates to "every person has special talents or qualities unlike any other."
The subtle problem is that those qualities may or may not be positive. Taking the edge case, if a person A is absolutely talentless at any and every non-basic activity, the fact that A is unique is not any reasonable cause for comfort.
However, such an edge case is non-existent, and given the vast number of possible talents and the combinatorially explosive number of sets of talents, it is pretty rare to for some person A to encounter a person B whose positive talents are a superset of A's. But in such an instance, should A feel any rational solace in the fact that he is unique, but in a strictly inferior way? Should B feel pride in achieving all that A has, and more? What is each of them justified in thinking?
Counselors often say "everyone is unique" as though it ought to make someone feel better about themselves; interestingly, it usually does. Somehow, the very thought of being different is highly gratifying to the self-esteem, in spite of all the effort we put in to be just like everyone else.
It's certainly true, of course, that no two people are exactly the same, but why is this inherently a good thing? I believe it stems from people substituting another definition of unique: irreplaceable. That is, "everyone is unique" translates to "every person has special talents or qualities unlike any other."
The subtle problem is that those qualities may or may not be positive. Taking the edge case, if a person A is absolutely talentless at any and every non-basic activity, the fact that A is unique is not any reasonable cause for comfort.
However, such an edge case is non-existent, and given the vast number of possible talents and the combinatorially explosive number of sets of talents, it is pretty rare to for some person A to encounter a person B whose positive talents are a superset of A's. But in such an instance, should A feel any rational solace in the fact that he is unique, but in a strictly inferior way? Should B feel pride in achieving all that A has, and more? What is each of them justified in thinking?
No comments:
Post a Comment