Great ideas and important concepts that needs to be discussed more widely. Although I don’t find the base dichotomy of Ordinary, and Extra-ordinary to be very reliable or natural analogy with Bonobos, and Chimps. I think the fundamental difference between them is meaningful and significant enough agency. The “ordinary” is way more extra than “extra-ordinary” the moment they develop awareness and realization to exercise their agency or something great.
I should have defined ordinary the contribution of people based on competences that can be developed by the majority of people in a few months, and extraordinary the contribution based on competences that only few people can develop.
Using this definition, I do find that the dichotomies ordinary vs. extraordinary and bonobos vs chimps (meaning, kindness vs. competition) have something in common and that the overlap between them is key, even though they are not the same thing.
If we only value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people, we are bound to set a competitive context and foster competitive feelings. Of course we should value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people. We should also make sure that we do this by engaging ordinary people doing ordinary things, thus promoting a social context in which it is a win-win for everybody, like bonobos do much better than chimps.
However, your suggestion goes in the direction of kindness that I am advocating because it is a way to engage everybody, rather than only the exceptionally talented.
Great ideas and important concepts that needs to be discussed more widely. Although I don’t find the base dichotomy of Ordinary, and Extra-ordinary to be very reliable or natural analogy with Bonobos, and Chimps.
I think the fundamental difference between them is meaningful and significant enough agency. The “ordinary” is way more extra than “extra-ordinary” the moment they develop awareness and realization to exercise their agency or something great.
Thanks for the comment Madhusudhan.
I should have defined ordinary the contribution of people based on competences that can be developed by the majority of people in a few months, and extraordinary the contribution based on competences that only few people can develop.
Using this definition, I do find that the dichotomies ordinary vs. extraordinary and bonobos vs chimps (meaning, kindness vs. competition) have something in common and that the overlap between them is key, even though they are not the same thing.
If we only value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people, we are bound to set a competitive context and foster competitive feelings. Of course we should value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people. We should also make sure that we do this by engaging ordinary people doing ordinary things, thus promoting a social context in which it is a win-win for everybody, like bonobos do much better than chimps.
However, your suggestion goes in the direction of kindness that I am advocating because it is a way to engage everybody, rather than only the exceptionally talented.