Is human nature inherently comparative?
Although we may not think or like it, many aspects of our lives are being constantly compared. Whether it be from, friends, family, colleges, teachers, coaches, etc., most people have some strengths and weaknesses that are being judged by their role models. I ask, is this an intrinsic trait in human nature? Or is it just a product of a world culture of materialism combined with a productivity focused mindset?
The answer to that question lies in comparison: why/how did past humans compare each other, and why/how do we currently compare each other? For the former, insight is found in ancient times.
Millions of years ago, when humans struggled to survive in a harsh climate coupled with low food availability, the evolutionary need for humans’ comparative nature was apparent. In order to hunt, tribes or groups wanted to send the people with the best strength, cunning, or speed to increase the chances of a successful hunt. Women were compared based on fertility and ability to care and raise a child, arguably the most important function evolutionarily. As a result, this comparative nature was naturally selected against humans who did not compare each other.
Do these comparisons sound familiar? They should, as today we compare almost the same exact traits as we did millions of years ago when it was necessary for our survival. Since humans’ technological progress and massively improved quality of life are relatively new advancements on an evolutionary scale, those primitive instincts for comparing people by different abilities and reproductive success are still ingrained in our emotional and rational psyche. Thus, these instincts drive at least some of our decisions we make, and therefore it would be reasonable to assume that comparison is inherent in our nature.
This can be easily seen with the immense popularity of sports and competitive games in general. These games allow us to quantify some aspect or aspects of a person, and since a person’s skill is hard to define numerically, we use comparison to determine how good or bad someone is. Think about it, you can’t put a number on a basketball player’s shooting ability, but you can compare their percentage of shots made to the average. It is this nuance in how we think of skill that reveals a deeper truth as to why we compare; it is due to the lack of a universal, shared sense of what is good and what is bad. Since we have no clear starting point or middle ground to help us measure skill or worth, the only option is to compare each person in whatever group or sport to the average of everybody else.
There is a flaw with this method, though, as it automatically makes some people “bad” and some people “good”, regardless of actual skill level across the entire group. For example, if you determined Edelman’s catching ability by the percent of catches made to total catches, and then compared it to the average in the NFL for wide receivers, then Edelman might look like he’s slightly better than the majority, but only by a little. It’s obvious that when compared to the general population, Edelman or anyone in the NFL should be soaring above the average, however it is clear that the definition of “good” changes when you change who you’re comparing to.
Although the link from comparison to human nature is well-made, it is undeniable that today’s cultural climate and socio-economic system plays an important contributing role in propagating the leftover instinct of comparison.
School plays a large role in keeping comparative valuations of people the status-quo. Grades assign a strict numerical value to your intellectual worth, and comparison of grades to other students in the classroom or the school is often an everyday occurrence in high schools and middle schools across the world. Combined with super competitive sports and a continual pressure to do well from almost everyone in a typical student’s life, school can make it feel like your only value is in grades or sports. In addition, high school plays a significant role in shaping your opportunities in life, thus resulting in a continually mounting pressure to be “ahead of the curve” and to work your heart out just so you can say that you are doing more than someone else.
In China, work occupies a similar sort of comparative niche, where a country going through massive industrialization has fostered a culture of workaholics and optimizing productivity at the cost of time. Right now, the standard for startups in China is “only” 9–9–6, meaning employees work from 9 am to 9 pm 6 days a week. In the U.S. companies such as SpaceX whose employees sometimes work up to 95 hours a week are outliers, in China they are the norm. In order to simply be average as a worker for a tech startup in China, you have to work the equivalent of what would be above even some of the hardest workers in the U.S.
China shows us that even “working hard” is relative to what you’re comparing to, and that a culture preserved by status quo basically sets the “average” amount of work or skill that is expected of any given person. 9-9-6 may seem almost unthinkable to Americans, but to the Chinese, it can be seen as a relief to other companies even longer work times, with ads of startups saying “We’re only 996”. Clearly, our definitions of hard, easy, good, and bad are all relative to what other people around us say it is and what the average person is like.
Thus, I can conclude that human nature is inherently comparative, however our inner sense of what to compare and contrast heavily depends on the context of the time and the values that a culture holds.
