The End of Average

The science of the individual instead instructs scientists to analyze, then aggregate: First, look for patterns within each individual. Then, look for ways to combine these individual patterns into collective insight.

The primary research method of averagarianism is aggregate, then analyze: First, combine many people together and look for patterns in the group. Then, use these group patterns (such as averages and other statistics) to analyze and model individuals.

Recall that the two defining assumptions of the Age of Average are Quetelet’s conviction that the average is the ideal, and the individual is error, and Galton’s conviction that if someone is Eminent at one thing they are likely Eminent at most things. In contrast, the main assumption of the science of the individual is that individuality matters19

Molenaar recognized that the fatal flaw of averagarianism was its paradoxical assumption that you could understand individuals by ignoring their individuality.

In essence, both Quetelet and Lord and Novick assumed that measuring one person many times was interchangeable with measuring many people one time.

How can a society predicated on the conviction that individuals can only be evaluated in reference to the average ever create the conditions for understanding and harnessing individuality?

The hardest part of learning something new is not embracing new ideas, but letting go of old ones.

Human potential is nowhere near as limited as the systems we have put in place assume. We just need the tools to understand each person as an individual, not as a data point on a bell curve.

The recommended change was radical: the environments needed to fit the individual rather than the average.