
The Mediocrity Principle - luu
http://edge.org/response-detail/11272
======
david927
_" The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but
that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference, then
our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the
darkness, we must supply our own light."_, Stanley Kubrick

~~~
alecco
_" As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first
time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle
indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother,
really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything
to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be
a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me
with cries of hate."_, Albert Camus, The Stranger

~~~
S4M
Nice quote! That's what the hero of _The Stranger_ , thinks just before being
executed.

------
clusterfoo
I don't really understand what is being argued. Two statements are made:

> A: The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special.

> B: Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural,
> universal laws.

The argument being that B implies A.

First this is self-contradictory: B implies B and nothing more.

What does he mean by "special". Are we talking about some mushy, subjective
definition of "special". If that's the case, then it's a moot point. By that
definition you're as special as someone thinks you are, including yourself. If
your mom thinks you're special, you're special. That's what subjective means.

If that's not the case, by special, does he mean highly unlikely, finite, or
unique? -- Math is infinite and governed by sets of universal rules, yet there
are many unique ("special") mathematical patterns.

In this case, we don't know if we're special or unlikely because we don't know
what the odds of us existing are. We don't know how common or uncommon
intelligent life is.

"But intelligent life is not special, even if it were uncommon, because it's
governed by the same universal laws as unintelligent dead matter."

Then, if our definition of special is not subjective, and uniqueness or
unlikelihood does not imply specialness, then what is the definition of
special that we're using here?

Or does he mean "governed by intent" (of a deity or purposeful universe). Now
we've got a new problem, which is defining what intent is, and if there even
is such a thing (which, if there isn't, the whole point is moot again).

~~~
skywhopper
I take "special" here to mean "deserving of privileges over and above other
instances". In this sense, if you think you are "special" that means you think
that you ought to be able to bend the rules more than other people, or that
cashiers ought to be nicer to you than to the rest of the people in line, or
that you deserve to get that last discount TV on the shelf on Black Friday, or
that it's okay for you to zoom past traffic on the shoulder because you're in
a hurry moreso than anyone else.

Possibly part of your trouble in interpreting the essay is that you're missing
out on what the essay is in response to. The question was posed: "What
scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?"

Whether the Mediocrity Principle is "correct" or not is not even the point.
The point is that _assuming_ the Mediocrity Principle to be true and acting as
if you and your situation are not special is a productive stance to take in
life, as it is in science.

It's another way of saying "the world does not revolve around you", "you are
not the center of the universe", etc.

~~~
gottebp
It's a false dichotomy to say the only two choices are 1) Acceptance of the
Mediocrity Principle or 2) Believing you are the center of the universe. I can
easily posit a third option where some aspect of our Universe and existence is
special without needing to be the center of it all.

~~~
skywhopper
Who said there are only two choices? The point is that it's often more useful
to assume the Mediocrity Principle. Not that it's the truth. And not even that
it's always better. Just that more often than not it's more useful.

------
gottebp
How does one prove this "Mediocrity Principle"? "Specialness" is in the realm
of philosophy and from that perspective, this principle just comes across as a
mellow form of nihilism. Telling students to filter all of science through the
"we're not special" lens just biases them so that if there actually is
something special, they will be blind to it. Might I suggest as an alternative
the "Keep an Open Mind Principle"?

------
golemotron
About some of the other comments: We need a term on HN for _this is something
you 'd understand if you weren't apt to take things so literally and see it as
a logical argument_.

~~~
tormeh
Amen. I mean, maybe I expect too much of other people, but I always try to
interpret what they say in the most coherent sense possible. People talking
about this kind of stuff don't usually just mash the keyboard - they have
something to say and assuming that it's crap because the literal
interpretation is crap is dumb.

------
moioci
Hey, this principle's not so special.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
That's ok, neither are we :)

------
asdf333
also known as the copernican principle

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle)

------
peterashford
See, this is really begging the question. As in actually "begging the
question" \- the logical fallacy.

The author states that people who have weird religious beliefs that imply that
people are the centre of the universe should not do so because science shows
us that the universe is indifferent to us. We are not special but part of the
universe and a product of the same rules that produced everything else. But
this is obviously begging the question: if you accepted the scientific view of
the world you wouldn't have a nutty religious view to start with.

In essence, the author says: accept science because science. No different to
when Christians say: accept Christianity because of what the bible says.

The author is correct but his argument is crap.

------
tiatia
He should dig deeper...

[http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2](http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2)

[http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.2593v1](http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.2593v1)

------
mhartl
_Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural, universal
laws_

 _Everything_ that happens in the world is the consequence of natural,
universal laws. That's what makes them universal.

 _The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren 't special._

The universal laws of nature have led to beings capable (among other things)
of discovering them. That seems pretty special to me.

------
scottlocklin
No surprises here: pretty much Meyers entire career has been confusing the
word "metaphysics" with the word "science."

------
bernardlunn
It was phrased as a scientific question, but I think of it more on
philosophical, ethical and human behavior lines. If you accept that you are
not special, you will tend to be nicer to other human beings. If you accept
that your country is not special you might avoid the aggressive behaviors that
lead to wars because "God is on your side".

------
tomjen3
Counterpoint - humans are very much not mediocre, we really are special. No
other species is as advanced as us, no other species is as capable as us and
no other species is as awesome as us.

We may one day discover intelligent alien life, until then the blue planet
really is special. Okay it may not look like much, but looks can be deceiving.

~~~
chippy
_" and opposition to the mediocrity principle is one of the major linchpins of
religion and creationism and jingoism and failed social policies."_

~~~
tomjen3
Well that is awesome then - either I have to agree with him, or I am a
nationalist. This is straight out of the What you can't say playbook.

~~~
chippy
Indeed - it's not very flexible! If anything the principle says that nothing
is more important than anything else. Which is humbling and a good thought
experiment, but I ask whether we can actually go about our lives using it.

------
samtalks
How is this different from humility? "Be humble" is an easier sell than "Be
mediocre" if the message is the same.

------
chippy
Question - how could we use The Mediocrity Principle in our technology works,
in our hacks, designs and developments?

There seems to be some fundamental opposition to the principle in the world we
live and operate in:

User centered design implies that the User is special.

Business and marketing say that the Customer is always right.

Solutions that seek to make things better, to improve the lot may go against
the principle as the universe doesn't care either way.

~~~
radley
You essentially got it right. The Mediocrity Principle mean it's proper to put
your users before yourself.

From a code standpoint, it means you strive for "it just works", even if it
means a lot of redundant code that doesn't match common expectations of best
practices or adds a lot of "useless" work for the devs.

------
lohankin
What follows immediately from the principle is that humans are not special
among species. We are average. Most of the life on Earth is bacteria life. At
least half of bacteria must be more intelligent than we are. Instead of
pursuing futile AI idea, we need to find a way to cooperate with bacteria, as
equal partners, and make use of their talents.

~~~
themartorana
I don't know. Everything in the principle seems to equate equal to equal - you
as a human are not special among humans... Earth is not special among planets,
and so on. To assume humans are not special among all life is to ignore
evolution and our dominant position on Earth.

That said, we didn't get here by divine intervention, and on another planet
with life, the dominant species will likely have followed a similar pattern to
dominance, and our existence as the dominant species is not special (the
dinosaurs once owned the place).

Also my ability to understand to what level you are being silly or snarky or
sarcastic is equally non-special.

------
altcognito
The only thing that seems to violate the mediocrity principle is the
staggering odds that we exist in the first place given the conditions under
which intelligent life needs to have in order to exist. But then,
Anthropic_principle, so there's that.

Een then, once you understand the vastness of the universe, even falls under
the veil of inevitability.

~~~
Retric
Don't confuse our history as the only possible history. There are lot's of
planets out there vary much like earth. Presumably there are trillions of
planets with single celled life and quite possibly trillions of planets with
intelegent life just not close enough for us to notice.

The universe is likely far larger than just the observable univers. Still ~27+
billion light years across means we only get to see suff that's less than 1
billion years old within ~1/20,000th of the univers and the last 1 million
years is ~1/20,000,000,000,000 of the visible universe. Look back 1 million
years and earth has little trace of any intelegent life. Worse if there was
another identical earth pushing out radio waves as much as we do 1,000 light
years from us we would probably have missed it so add another 9 zeros.

Hell voyager 1 is in a well known location less than 2 light days from us
pointing a directional antenna directly at us and it's not that easy to
detect. 1 light year would mean ~1/10,000th the signal which would be hard.

------
pervycreeper
Yes, nobody whatsoever is special, except, that is, for those of us who are.

Furthermore, our cosmological position is, in fact, at least somewhat special,
but that is not surprising, by the anthropic principle.

Yet another idiotic bloviation from PZ.

