We are not homogeneous factors of production

In our perception of our fellow human beings we regularly make two fundamental mistakes: we presume that people are largely the same, when they are not; and we significantly overrate the ability and effectiveness, not only of the average citizen^[1], but also of our leading citizens. 

In our daily behaviour there is a presumption of broad equality within our social reference group - our friends and colleagues - and beyond that, within the public at large as it is presented to us through the media^[2] and as we perceive it through our self-affirming use of the Internet. 

We are all conscious of the extremes.  From time to time our normalised world is disturbed by the temporary intrusion of an intellectually, physically or otherwise socially handicapped person.  More frequently, we are made witness to the outstanding accomplishments of the unusually gifted - mainly in sport, but also in other fields of human endeavour.  We marvel at the power of the drug-free Olympic sprinter; at the grace of the champion gymnast; at the intense virtuosity of the prodigy violinist; at the intellect of the Nobel winning physicist. 

But all of these extremes are remote, they are disturbances or diversions, and life quickly returns to normal. 

We, the ordinary citizens, presume ourselves to be a relatively homogeneous group.  To be sure, some of us do better than others in different aspects of life.  In many societies such differential achievers are grouped into socio-economic classes that may or may not be defined along ethnic lines^[3], and within such groupings the presumption of homogeneity is even stronger. 

In the daily routine of life the full extent or paucity of an individual's ability is rarely tested and therefore rarely visible.  We tend also to live in social circles of equivalently equipped individuals; circles that most of the time don't intersect with those of people who are either significantly more or less able than ourselves.  It is not surprising therefore that most of us live as if we lived among equals and that we take the view that what is good for us is good for society. 

The picture we have is of a distribution of human ability that has the great majority of us clustered tightly around our average, and a handful of exceptional achievers and handicapped people at either end of the ability range, far away from the average: you either are socially challenged or you are not; most of us are not, a few unlucky ones are. 

The truth is not quite so polarised though. It would be far more accurate to say that we are all "socially challenged" but each to a different extent.

Human ability along all its many varied dimensions covers a very wide range along which we are distributed more widely than would allow a presumption of homogeneity - a much flatter bell-shaped distribution curve around a much lower median than the perceived reality. 

Those making pronouncements on social and economic policy frequently, at least implicitly, share in the tendency to assume that most of us are, broadly speaking, equal and exchangeable, any one for any other. 

It is one of the inherent weaknesses of free market democratic dogma^[4] that it presupposes that we are equally well equipped to partake of its fruits, and that we only have ourselves to blame if we don't pick our share of the fruit. 

It is this presumption that allows the rich man to pronounce that poverty is merely an attitude, and that anyone can succeed financially simply by applying themselves sufficiently.

That is equivalent to saying that anyone can run a sub four minute mile if only they put their mind to it and commit to their training. 

But winning in any field of human endeavour, be it business or athletics, is not within the reach of just anyone with the right attitude.  Attitude is a very important ingredient; there is no doubt about that.  A strong, positive, and confident attitude^[5] will enable you as an individual to reach the outer limits of your potential in whatever activity you choose to pursue, but it won't ever take you beyond those limits which are often genetically preset^[6].  The sub four minute miler's success lies in single-minded dedication and right attitude; but it also has a lot to do with the extraordinary cardiovascular efficiency with which he was blessed from birth.  If the athlete has no scruples their performance may also have been chemically enhanced, and perhaps that is a price that others were not prepared to pay for "success"^[7]?

The assumption of equality, of homogeneity, is quite invalid, and any ideology founded on it, such as the ideology of freedom^[8], is one that will play society into the hands of those who are, in fact, more equal than others. 

Perhaps that is as it should be?  And, will not any society, no matter what its ideology, whatever its checks and balances on power, be captured and ruled by those who are "more equal than others"? 

Yes. 

This belief system does not seek to deny power to the most able.  Truth in Uncertainty seeks to encourage those in power to exercise it as our trustees^[9] or guardians, and not as our lords and masters as may be their wont. 

Human heterogeneity, human diversity, the enormously wide range of human interests and abilities, needs to be explicitly recognised and respected in the formulation and application of economic and social policy, if such policy is to be sustainable^[10], equitable^[11], and hope-engendering^[12].