Being Average in the Age of Alpha

the problem is that people don't want the actual excellence - they want the prestige and reward for being excellent. They want the money, financial gains and status. Most people are unhappy doing what they do, but they see it as a way to achieve said status.

If you already have something you love doing, and is doing it with secure financials, you're already ahead of the game imho.

There are a lot of people who are viewed as excellent and yes, it often takes tremendous drive to get where they are (sometimes luck plays a bigger role), but how excellent are they really? Your suggestion that "they seek tremendous joy from walking that path" may work for some, but certainly not for all. A lot of the high achievers that I've known are relentlessly driven to the brink of mental or physical self-destruction. They may be proud of their success, but they don't seem to be joyful people. They may feel good when comparing themselves to someone like me, but they tend to compare themselves to people who are more successful than themselves, creating a vicious cycle of demanding higher achievment for themselves, yet never being satisfied by it. They concentrate on their careers at the expense of their families, so they have a lot of familial strife. Their spouses and children are virtual strangers. Then can't connect with them emotionally because that's a beta trait. On the other hand, I've known high achievers who are very happy, loving people. Are the former types really excellent? It depends on where we place our priorities, but as a culture (in the US), we tend to view ruthless, self-obsessed near-madmen as excellent.

What's average? Inevitably, it's someone who hasn't made a lot of money or grown high on a career ladder, or who hasn't had a large presence in helping people outside of his or her immediate social circle. In this last case, how wide does the circle have to be to elevate the person from average to excellent? Can an aide who works with disabled children in a high school be considered excellent? She's just a regular person with a below average income. But she may be inspiring because she's loving and thoughtful and thought-provoking. Her presence in the lives of her student may be the single most positive thing in their lives, but that impact is within a very small social circle. But then again, her small social circle of impact can include one person who goes on to have a tremendous impact on a large number of people. Does that now make her excellent?

Contentment with our lot seems to be one of the most underrated of human achievements and it can be well within the reach of the average person and far beyond the reach of the person of excellence.

Rising to power requires one to rise within a system designed and molded by those whom preceded them. And, more than likely, that system becomes inherently bias towards the types of people that have risen to that power.

The people in a social power position are able to use their influence to unilaterally market their subjective reasoning as fact to the greater society. So, being born, raised, and living in a society subjects us to predetermined social standards based on precedence. Not on merit or objective value.

But the real problem is "categorizing" people. You can't know whether someone is cut out for something unless they try, and America in particular does not like that kind of progression (after all, you can't try every career on the planet -- you can easily die never knowing what you are good at). They only really like people who choose to do a career they are good at on the first or second try. Or they like people who can convince others they've never failed at anything.