The Law of Averages works such that for every good thing you've got, something bad will be coming soon, and vice versa. That's what we are taught, to be motivated in difficult times. And of course, not to get our heads in the cloud when things are going great.
But how far is this true? I mean I agree that one should not give up when the going gets tough, but do we really need to apply the brakes when we are on a roll. Shouldn't the good last longer, for it is, more or less, the ultimate goal of life. To achieve peace and happiness.
We can go back to the original argument of averages, which would imply that the 'bad' stuff is coming soon, but do you really believe that you would suddenly lose form. Well, yes. Overconfidence is the first step towards pride. And pride is after all, a 'dark' trait. Obviously, if you start wrong, you will end up doing wrong.
And then, humility is one of the key steps to have a scope for improvement. It is a fact that an intelligent person always believes their knowledge to be limited. And this is something that drives them to learn more. On the other hand, the self-proclaimed 'Mr. Know It All' is probably the one you would tag as a 'wannabe'.
What can be inferred, is that the 'averages' are effectively as good as it gets. 'Jack of All' is probably the ideal term.
So, why is that we still segregate things as 'best' and 'worst'? Surely, the reference point is the 'average', but wouldn't the 'best' be lacking in, perhaps, a key feature.
You see, the ones above or below the average mark will lack something or the other. As an example, the financially rich might have a huge bank balance, but they may have a hard time in finding someone who loves them, and not their money.
Yes, there's nothing wrong is searching for the best available option. What's wrong is the discrimination that comes with this process.
For instance, while purchasing a smartphone, one might completely ignore a 'not-so-popular' brand. Every one wants a safe deal, after all. However, there are many who actually do some research before making the purchase.
Here's a question for those 'some'. Why can't the same approach be taken with other people. Why is that a certain group is treated as 'wrong' when you don't have the slightest knowledge about them? Stereotypes, perhaps? Or maybe peer pressure?
The thing is, that the 'average' is a minimum requirement. For if they are not great in something (the best), at least they won't be bad in that. Sadly, we ignore the fact that the 'worst' may be good in something else, which we might need someday.