The Above Average Matter Most

I was reading the "The wit and Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew" (highly recommended). And in it he emphasised on the importance of the people above that can perform and do perform above average.

This was kinda interesting cause i never really came across this thought. 

It made me think. I was thinking about the following:

1. What is the impact that an above average person has or can have?
2. What is the impact that an average person has.

When you think about a person who is above average than you automaticly come across 2 things. Output and Potential.

What are companies:

Companies are collectives of people that strive to create some sort of value that someone else is willing to pay a certain amount for.

How is a company born?

One person. Sometimes two, sometimes three. Most of the time these people sacrafice a lot of short term gains for long term gains. 

What is there at the end? A machine / system that produces sometimes. Who work on the companies? A lot of average people and some above average people.

Conclusion: Most providers of wealth come from above average people

Where are the people that are just a little above average?

Within a company. Most of the time they have a leadership role. Within this leadership role they influence a lot of people. Saying they are doing a good job (which would imply they are above average) they have effect on a lot of lives. It's the same with leaders in a country. Lee Kuan Yew was 1 person. Yet he has influence on millions of people. Most people who get to those functions are above average. It's hard when you make average decision and put in average time and sacrifice an average amount of side projects (family/ friends) to raise to the top. 

So you can find the average people above average in the top of the fields.

So why is not less usefull to focus on the average. 

The world is hard. There are so many variables that you can only grab a small portion. And that is when your brain is not failing your ass. If your IQ is 80. Good fucking luck getting to a decent position. 

So let's say we have a super succesful person who is than able to teach others to be more succesful (this is the normal method). 

When he has to pick the 5 people he can teach. it only make sense to pick the ones who have the most chance of succeeding (this is not only based on IQ. it's based on stuff like drive and other things). 

You only have limited time and resources to it makes sense to focus precise on the ones that have the ability to get what you are trying to teach. 

Scenario 1: What happends when you take 5 average people

When you train 5 average people you can make them good performing average people. Maybe one will go out and do something really good

Scenario 2: What happends when you take 5 top performing people.

When you train 5 top performing people you end up with 5 good performing people who have good skills. The chance of 2 ormore people doing something really well is way bigger. So the ROI on your time is much greater. 

So now we get to the end result

End result: Discrimination

​

Holy shit what has the word discrimination a horrible reputation. But what it means in reality. In reality it means seeing differences. 

​

So when is discrimination not justified? This is very difficult. There might not be a short answer to it. 

I might be more smart to talk about the times it is justified. 

But after thinking about it. I don't know. How about that as an ending. I dont fucking know.

I think about it sometimes. It's an interesting discussion. But I don't have a full answer to it that makes enough sense to me.