A genius or even just a talented person must be born. Whatever we are told about the need for hard and hard work (by the way, we do not deny it at all), without the inclinations and abilities, without a psychophysiological predisposition to creativity, to achieve significant results
hard. However, why do people speak of “mediocrity” with such contempt? This can be heard both at school, at a university, and in any team. We involuntarily envy talented, successful. And we brand those who - as it seems to us - stand out in no way.
What is mediocrity? Is this a norm or a deviation? Let us ponder the very meaning of the word, its etymology (internal form) often helps to understand the essence of the concept. Mediocrity is what is between the extreme points. Theoretically, between plus and minus. So why is it bad? Is observance of the "golden mean" not approved by society? However, if, for example, the scale
intelligence we will display in the form of a coordinate system, where the plus is
genius, and the extreme minus is its complete absence (from oligophrenia to anencephaly), it becomes clear that mediocrity is zero. Starting point, nothing. Nobody wants to be zero. Just like no one wants to be considered mediocre, meaningless and capable of nothing. Is this not our hostility to this concept?
The extreme mediocrity of thinking is the inability, unwillingness or inability to go beyond the standards, established dogmas, stereotypes. Creativity, in principle, has always been an engine of progress and development. However, only recently, sociologists and psychologists have posed the problem of "mediocrity as a social danger." Is this a formidable phenomenon? How can it be dangerous?
Indeed, traditionally people were wary of those who deviate strongly in one direction from the generally accepted "norm." Geniuses were often outcasts, eccentrics, renegades. As well as mentally disabled people, although it was to them that the greater
leniency. But in recent decades, such concepts and personality traits as eccentricity, unconventionality, creativity have been actively cultivated. This is done by
psychology, pedagogy, and other sciences that study man. So what is the danger of mediocrity? After all, the very stereotyped, standard solution to the tasks and problems cannot be considered a sin. Just as creativity cannot be an end in itself. It seems that mediocrity is considered undesirable and dangerous, primarily because of a tendency to conformism. To follow the crowd, the herd. To blindly and thoughtlessly execute someone else's will. And it is precisely with this that humanity has come face to face especially tragically in the last hundred years.
In theory, in a society with traditional moral principles, with a solid system of values, mediocre people follow them and accept them, if only because everyone does it. And there is nothing reprehensible in this. Another thing is that if there are no such foundations, if either dictatorship or anarchy is strong, the inability to stand out from the crowd and the desire for blind submission can be dangerous precisely because of their mass character. Mediocrity does not analyze the causes of the phenomenon, does not delve into the essence. It merges with the crowd because "it is necessary" and "everyone does it." This is the main trouble. However, is mediocrity eradicated?