A genius or even just a talented person must be born. No matter what they tell us about the need for hard and hard work (by the way, we do not deny it at all), without inclinations and abilities, without a psychophysiological predisposition to creativity, to achieve significant results
hard. However, why do people refer to someone as "mediocrity" with such contempt? This can be heard at school, and at the university, and in any team. We involuntarily envy the talented, successful. And we stigmatize those who - in our opinion - do not stand out.
What is mediocrity? Is this the norm or a deviation? Let's think about the very meaning of the word, its etymology (internal form) often helps to understand the essence of the concept. Mediocrity is what lies between the extremes. 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
we will display intelligence as a coordinate system, where plus isgenius, 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 as no one wants to be considered a mediocre, meaningless and incapable person. Isn't this our dislike for this concept?
Extreme mediocrity of thinking is the inability, unwillingness or inability to go beyond the standards set by dogmas, stereotypes. Creativity, in principle, has always been the engine of progress and development. However, only recently sociologists and psychologists have asked themselves the problem of "mediocrity as a social danger." Is this really a terrible thing? How could it be dangerous?
After all, traditionally people were wary of those who strongly deviate in any direction from the generally accepted "norm". Geniuses were often outcasts, eccentrics, renegades. Just like mentally handicapped people, although it was to them that more was manifested
indulgence. But in recent decades, such concepts and personality traits as originality, unconventionality, and creativity have been actively cultivated. Psychology, and pedagogy, and other sciences that study a person are engaged in this. So what is the danger of mediocrity? After all, the very stereotyped, standard solution to the tasks and problems posed cannot be considered a sin. Just as creativity cannot be an end in itself. It seems that mediocrity is considered undesirable and dangerous,first of all, because of the tendency to conformism. To follow the crowd, the herd. To blindly and thoughtlessly carry out someone else's will. Namely, this is what mankind has faced especially tragically over the past hundred years.
In theory, in a society with traditional moral principles, with a strong system of values, mediocre people follow them and accept them, if only because everyone else 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 obedience can be dangerous precisely because of their mass nature. Mediocrity does not analyze the causes of the phenomenon, does not delve into the essence. She blends in with the crowd because "that's how it should be" and "that's how everyone does it." This is the main problem. However, is mediocrity eradicated?
