If we want to be right, or more accurately, if we want our predictions to conform to expected results, out judgements should cluster around the largest data sets. That’s the safest bet one should make. When meeting a stranger for the first time, you should expect them to be approximately of average looks, average intellect, average tastes, average opinions, etc. I am always struck when someone meets a friend of mine, then later confesses in private that they were expecting someone different. What pieces of data were used to cobble together the image of the person they thought they were meeting? I’m not even sure they would know beyond a rudimentary sense of how they came to form their initial assessment.

I suspect, though, many of us do not apply the law of averages in many circumstances. Hearing the mention of another is already enough to elevate that imagined person above and beyond our standard estimation, but above and beyond what? The average, something we are loathe to identify in ourselves. But this betrays our low opinion of averages and the attended connotations (e.g., ordinary, commonplace, trite, uninteresting, boring, dull, unremarkable, unintelligent, etc.) We live in the average and despise the average, whether from vanity or a need to think the story of our individual lives important enough to be told. To tell a story implies a remarkable, extraordinary event.

No wonder we are unhappy beasts. It would be far better to embrace the average, emphasize the remarkable found within the ordinary, and discard the negative connotations. Think of it in this way. An average dog smells at a capacity that far exceeds the most exceptional human. By contrast, the average human intellect greatly exceeds the smartest dog. The point is not to compare ourselves to others but to appreciate the extent of the spectrum. Within averages, truly remarkable things are happening.