In this article, I explore material and spiritual dimensions of the question of the bell curve, where we find ourselves on the bell curve, and what material and spiritual things can help us with where we find ourselves on the bell curve.
In response to my article What to do about the 50 or 60 or 70 percent of the people who are below average where I critique a few articles lamenting the loss of a time when being just average was good enough, my friend responded with a clarification of the question that my friend asks:
 | Here is the 50% argument:
When the new HR lady implemented a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), it was described to the workers using the classic bell curve: As the curve demonstrates, BY DEFINITION, most people are average, with an equal number of people being either ahead or behind the average. At one place I worked at HR required that every manager spread their employees across this scale, no group is allowed to have all great people, every group has to have an equal number of exceptional people to "crap" people. In a sufficiently large sample, I would agree with this, but I do not think you can use this statistical analysis with any benefit on a small group. 100 Millionaires in a room is not a statistical sample. I would argue that any 100 people in a room are not a statistical sample, much less demanding that a manager of 6 people distribute them nicely along the curve. |
OK, lets look at how you are framing this debate: You propose something that is self evident, or something that is "by definition", i.e. "with an equal number of people being either ahead or behind the average." (Oh and that something is mis-defined. You are good enough at math to know what you are talking about is not the average, but the mean (i.e. midpoint.) Averages are often not the same as the midpoint. Also, the curve above has no skew, which is rare in real life. But we'll bypass this misdefinition and continue the discussion.)
Anyhow, after creating a definition, then you say, "What do we do about the people who fall into the bottom half of this definition?"
Yes, I know the work place situation you are referring to. It sounds like that HR person read one, maybe two, books and is slavishly following them. Maybe there is some validity in trying to make the people managers work harder, and not just rubber stamp everyone with a self esteem building five stars. Or maybe, that HR person should be put in the bottom portion of her bell curve, and replaced with someone who read more than just one book.
But I think you know you're playing semantics on this. When you ask this question you're not talking about this old company. You are never asking the question about what should be done with HR who demands this nonsense, or management that agrees to it. The answer is obvious.
When we talk about this, and you bring this up, you and I both know it is not in the context of this old job. Every time you bring up this particular "What do we do about" question, it's in context of a discussion about applying this idea to the broader population, especially in terms of social programs and such. And especially, what do we do about those in broader society who find themselves in the lower half? And we always have the discussion that you feel I am in the upper half, and that you feel a sense of rejection over the loss of that job, which somehow proves you as being in the bottom half.
When you pose this, it is often posed as if there is some kind of predestination to ones assigned position in the bell curve. You have setup the definition to force 50% into the bottom half. Any response that attempts to move people will fail because of the "definition". It is framed as if there is nothing that can be done about it.
And as you point out, maybe, in the small non-statistical sampling, this is true.
So I addressed the broader issues in my commentary on these articles that consider the larger population and the question of whether average is good enough anymore. These articles point to some answers to this question.
As for the specific question, "What do we do with the people in the bottom half?" I am not sure that "we" do anything in particular, beyond what we are already doing. Society already provides some safety nets, and opportunities for education and advancement. Some people will take advantage of these things and bounce back and climb up. The challenge is that there are other people will use a safety net as a long term hammock, and an even bigger group it seems that will refuse to grab any life rope handed them. Is the group who uses the safety net as a hammock growing? Some authors, such as James DeMint, seem to say that it is, as more and more people discover the ability to vote themselves a benefit from the public purse. He says the group voting themselves benefits is growing to over 50%, and that is a dangerous tipping point. If this group is continuing to grow, this is a very dangerous trend for our country.
But I get the feeling that you use the forcing of this bell curve on the smaller group as some kind of metaphor for something society is doing to the population at large. Fortunately, in our American economic system and society, unlike many others, there is no rigid caste system to force people at large to stay in their assigned segment of the bell curve. We still have a lot of mobility available to us. There are certainly a lot of threats to this mobility that can appear to conspire to keep someone who has landed at the bottom stuck at the bottom. And there is no getting around genuine disadvantage and misfortune as a cause for someone's current position. But in this country there are also a lot of resources, and there still is no substitute for self determination.
But your response seems to claim I'm misrepresenting the question by applying it to the larger group (while saying you believe it is not valid to apply to the smaller group.) Lets say you are genuine in wondering what can we do if we bring this question of "What do we do with the people below average" back to the smaller sample. It is reasonable to ask: Are the answers we found in considering this question for the bigger group valid in the smaller sample?
I think to the extent that people are willing to claim responsibility for their position in life, and believe that what they do can, and will, make a difference in their lives, and then they are willing to do the difficult work to rise above the mean, I think the principles in the article above are probably the same as for the general population.
In the stories I critiqued, two workers were picked from the factory, and their life stories and jobs were highlighted. Luke Hutchins was portrayed as someone with a future because of his technical skills and ability to manage automation. And Madelyn "Maddie" Parlier was portrayed as someone dealt a hand of cards in life, not sure of her ability to survive in the face of relenting automation. They were portrayed as being part of two different castes in the factory, the priesthood of level 2 skilled techs, and the interchangeable level 1 unskilled laborers.
We never found where they fell within their respective groups. Luke Hutchins might be their worse machinist, and Madelyn Parlier might be one of their least experienced level one's. But look at the apparent difference in their attitudes. Luke is anxious to learn more, and has a plan for the things he wants to learn. Maddie, seems to be excused by the author because of her position in life for not knowing more. She seems apprehensive about her ability to learn more because there is so much she doesn't know that Luke does know.
If Luke is positive about his ability to learn more and influence his position in the company, and Maddie feels she has too much stacked up, too far back of a starting point to make a difference for herself in the face of automation, who will be right in their predictions for the future? They both will! It will all come back to attitude, and the actions that they follow because of their attitudes. If Maddie can learn to take on Luke's attitude, I have no doubt that she can eventually rise on the curve too. There is nothing that she needs to learn that Luke at some point didn't know and also have to learn.
Of course, my optimism for both of them to use their abilities to positively influence their position in the factory, and their futures in general, ignores a different issue: Yes, there can be differences in aptitude or talent. It is possible that no amount of practice will turn someone with no talent into a Michael Jordan. It's possible in a small enough group, like the confines of a single NBA team, someone with no talent put into that team may not be able to rise into the ranks of that very elite group. Sticking a 50 year old hobo in the room with the millionaires, and a full library of all their books, may not be enough to turn the hobo into a millionaire, despite the movie Trading Places.
Sometimes no amount of wishful thinking can make up for these starting points. But our country still leaves the individual free if one situation doesn't work to find a different situation. We aren't stuck in a particular pressure cooker of a bell curve. The hobo, if he wanted to settle down and work hard for someone, could probably enjoy a stable and more comfortable life. The person who was put on the team with Michael Jordan, may despite several years of the same coaching and practices, never be on par with Michael Jordon. That person could leave and be depressed that they were stuck in the bottom of that bell curve. Or they could have a better attitude after they leave. They could probably use that experience to go and teach basketball to kids, become a sports writer, or become a talent scout, or help design athletic shoes. They could join a different bell curve where what they learned is of value. A different bell curve, their talents, abilities, and learned skills, could place them in a top segment.
Luke may have found something uniquely suited to his talents, and he will find the rewards of pushing forward easier to attain. If Maddie can't, for whatever reason, handle doing what it takes to get ahead in the factory, maybe she needs to find a different line of work. There is no guarantee in life we will succeed at any particular thing we try.
In the bigger bell curve of life, there is no predestination for the vast majority of us. We can move into a different segment. And in the smaller bell curves that life puts us in, at least in our society, perhaps we will be stuck in a particular part of that smaller bell curve. But we are relatively free to move to a different bell curve. People in mid life, and even older, do this all the time when they decide to change careers. However, someone who was successful in a previous career, probably has learned fundamental techniques that transcend a particular career. This person often has something valuable to make their next career a positive experience. Again, they will get a reward in their new career for the hard work they put in on the old career. Our goal should be to learn these transcendent techniques. And then do the hard work to apply them!
Possibly the biggest predictor of this resilience is happiness and optimism, and a firm belief in the ability to positively influence the future. And fortunately, research by Shawn Achor, and others, shows that all people can improve their baseline happiness and optimism, and reap the rewards of this.
But there is another whole inescapable facet to this question. This wasn't addressed by the previous articles, because it is something that we don't like to consider in the public debate in this country. And I only mentioned it but remotely in my commentary about the articles.
There is a spiritual question of great importance in this debate: What about the problem of sin in the world? What do the natural consequences of sin do to our place on the bell curve?
Many people try to ignore the spiritual question. Some vigorously deny a sin issue in this world. But I believe the Bible does a good job of proving that we are rebellious created creatures, who turn away from our Creator and do things that we know we should not do. Any attempt to solve the large problems without dealing with the sin issue will fall short. By "definition", they must fall short because they are not considering the whole problem.
What is one of the biggest effects of the sin problem on this issue? The apostle Paul summed up an important part of the sin problem, rebellion against God's principles, when he said, "that which I want to do, I don't do, and that which I don't want to do, I do."
In the essay on Shawn Achor and The Happiness Advantage - Why Are Unhappy People Unhappy, this issue is discussed:
| It's hard to diet when all you are thinking about is the chocolate eclair that you can't eat. That's why we need internal transformation, to have the mind of Christ in us.
What we really need is surrender to the transformation that Christ wants to do in us. Anything short of that is doomed to fail, because only Christ's transformation deals with the internal sin issue. Without it, we are just leopards trying to dye our spots. Remember, Christ chose the simple things of this world to confound the wise..... |
What do these verses have to say about the bell curve?
- We should "count others better than ourselves" - Perhaps we should be humble, and put everyone else higher on the bell curve than ourselves. We should not boast about our current position.
- "Look not only to his own interests" - Considering the question of the bell curve is important way to consider others interests, but it is not sin to also look at our own interests and determine how to improve our position. We must always keep in mind "esteeming others better than ourselves"
- "Jesus Christ... did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" - In other words, Christ was at the top of the bell curve! There could be no one higher, He was equal with God!
- "Emptied himself taking the form of a servant" - He took on the form of the lowest part of the bell curve, and used that position to serve all of mankind.
- "became obedient to death even death on a cross" - After that experience, He emerged from the tomb triumphant! He had answered Satan's charge that it was impossible to obey God's law in a human body marred by the effects of thousands of years of sin. Christ resisted daily temptation, He did not sin, by totally relying on power from God the Father, always focusing on "Not according to my will, but according to Thy will." He presents this example to us, of the unlimited power of God to transform us into His character, and keep us from sinning. Will we take hold of that power? Will we let God answer Satan's accusation that God's power is not enough to keep us from sin?
- Even the lowest positions on the bell curve can be a blessing if the person in that position unites with the power of God.
So the Bible does have some important things to say about the bell curve. The Bible tells how God designed this universe, and why there are bell curves in so many places in nature and life. By seeking God's solutions, we can work out the best solutions that will work hand in hand with His design.
Dare to be a Daniel, partner with God, seek the mind of Christ, and experience the fullest success possible in life, and in the life to come.